Report: Shooting at Fort Hood; Multiple Injuries UPDATE2: Four dead, 16 injured...

reply to post by neo96


I can only guess you are making a subtle innuendo, so I'll say it out loud... There is no end to the willingness of some to make as many gun laws as possible, but those same people are loathe to enforce them... Unless it suits their immediate agenda, or injures a specific party.

There... I said it...

if he had driving a toyata camery, it is a bit heavier with more pick up in the low speeds that a toyota corrolia, but a mustang would have been better, good tourqu, heavy ect..now if he had an extended cab ford 350, now that is what i woould have used if i planned......really?!? did the gun pull the trigger, the human did, why? what was going on in his life? was it his life? he is in the military and any of you have been in the military know that 'Uncle Sam Aint Released Me Yet' ....this happened on a military base..when i think of military i think of guns and warriors and soliders....where were all the guns of the soliders? this is the state america is in...disarm everybody..only let the 'elected officials' decide who has and carries firearms..my friends tell me im 'old school' but its a military base...why aren't most of the people armed? if your answer is 'because we cant trust them'...well....the question to your answer is the answer....

neo96
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Take your pick:

en.wikipedia.org...

Brady bill

www.ncsl.org...

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...

The only thing they do is a criminal background check, and please note that it is state specific on top of this. No waiting. A quick NCIS check. Done.

How to Buy a Firearm in Texas (with Pictures!)

So please try again. Better yet, don't. Just concede the point.

Mirthful Me
That's laughable... And incorrect...

Hope he has an excellent attorney...

Yeah - I can't answer for him...or anyone else.
When I was around him, and this was taking place on a regular basis, I know he had 50+ guns, at one time.
I think his collection has dwindled significantly through the years, to where most of the guns he has now, are actually 'worth' something, either as collectibles or for usability.

~Lucidity

neo96
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Take your pick:

en.wikipedia.org...

Brady bill

www.ncsl.org...

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...

The only thing they do is a criminal background check, and please note that it is state specific on top of this. So please try again. Better yet. Concede your point.

Try again ?

Seriously ?

Read that ATF form ?

Guess not.

There's too many pages to have read through all of them.
So if this is posted somewhere already, apologies.

Just thought this to be odd, and wanted to add it to the discussion.



FBI, Military Hunting 'BOOKER' - Supposedly Planning Ft. Hood



Fast Facts On Fort Hood Shooting Hoax 2014

neo96

~Lucidity

neo96
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Take your pick:

en.wikipedia.org...

Brady bill

www.ncsl.org...

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...

The only thing they do is a criminal background check, and please note that it is state specific on top of this. So please try again. Better yet. Concede your point.

Try again ?

Seriously ?

Read that ATF form ?

Guess not.

Criminal. Adjudicated. Texas. Toodles.

Report: Shooting at Fort Hood; Multiple Injuries UPDATE2: Four dead, 16 injured...

Sad to hear that.

It is the second time when I'll say that Fort Hood Must be Closed.

3shadesofblack
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

Some report yesterday said it was a 1911 frame, but it isn't really significant. You can get a decent off-brand 1911 for $450 new, and sometimes a better brand for that price used. I bought my Springfield for that price, although it was many years ago.

Still, any 45 caliber is not the ideal gun for a mass shooting. 9 mm would have held more rounds, made more penetration in the buildings, been easier to shoot, and easier to find ammo.

Moving from building to building and shooting at more than one location does not sound like a psychopath to me. It sounds like a planned attack. It sounds methodical. There is a huge risk in getting in the vehicle and driving elsewhere while emergency personnel are descending on the base. He had to have a target there.

Edit:

Just realized I contradicted myself. I said it was a planned attack, and I also said the weapon was not the ideal weapon for a planned attack.

I guess I should just go ahead and spit out my crazy theory. I believe the shooter was a patsy of course, and he had a specific target or 2 or 3 or 4. He used the .45 because it was the best chance of killing his target, he shot everyone else as coverup, or to satisfy some other public relations agenda, or maybe just for the hell of it, since he was about to self-destruct once the mission was done anyway.

Sounds cuckoo, but these situations are cuckoo.

edit on 3-4-2014 by 3shadesofblack because: (no reason given)

it's not REALLY a contradiction....i mean, a mass shooting is just that...you shoot a bunch of people, it doesn't necessarily NEED to be premeditated. if you're in a room full of people, and you lose it, and just start shooting, you can have a "mass shooting"

but you are correct in your assertion that traveling to another location, to continue shooting people doesn't fit with "oh, he just went nuts", then again, maybe it was a random building, and he saw people, and wasn't out of ammo yet.. -shrug- i dunno...

and really, ANY weapon is good for killing or seriously injuring lots of people, as long as you are "good" with that weapon.....a while back, a japanese guy went nuts, went into a school, and stabbed a whole bunch of people in a very short period of time....and if you have a .45 based on a 1911, but with a wider mag well for a double stack magazine, you can get something like 14 rounds to a mag, which is double the capacity of a normal single stack mag.....so i mean, there's possibilities...

jessejamesxx
Ambien is the only drug they're admitting he was on? $100 says he was also on SSRIs and they're conveniently not stating it because of all of the other shooters on it as well.

i'd put money on that..

~Lucidity
Criminal. Adjudicated. Texas. Toodles.

I see a pattern developing here... You seem to engage in smug rhetoric based on sheer ignorance and ineptitude, and when that crutch is kicked out from under you by cold hard facts, you employ a de facto "take my ball and go home."

Except you come right back, and begin anew, the same tactics serving you no better, and ending in the same result...

I think there's a definition in that.

I'm not saying you can't continue to post in such a manner, I just wanted you to know it has not gone unnoticed.

HeavenlyAngel

Report: Shooting at Fort Hood; Multiple Injuries UPDATE2: Four dead, 16 injured...

Sad to hear that.

It is the second time when I'll say that Fort Hood Must be Closed.

edit on 3-4-2014 by HeavenlyAngel because: Missing letters

close the base? that doesn't make ANY kind of sense.....

reply to post by Mirthful Me


No. He made a non-factual statement and seemingly does not understand what criminal or adjudicated mean or what the law is. Only some states have broadened the federal law to account for things like this. Texas ain't one of them.

Oh, and I was going home. From work. But I'm back.

Not sure where your smugness is coming from. And while we're at it, speaking of patterns and things not going unnoticed, not sure how the mods could have let a rather serious breaking news thread get so off topic for so long on a little bashfest a bit back either.


Why The Fort Hood Shooter Was Able To Purchase A Gun Despite Serious Mental Health Issues

~Lucidity
No. He made a non-factual statement and seemingly does not understand what criminal or adjudicated mean or what the law is. Only some states have broadened the federal law to account for things like this. Texas ain't one of them.

There is no state where Spec4 Ivan Lopez would have been prevented from purchasing a handgun.

Not sure where your smugness is coming from. And while we're at it, speaking of patterns and things not going unnoticed, not sure how the mods could have let a rather serious breaking news thread get so off topic for so long on a little bashfest a bit back either.

I come from a long line of smug primates, no reason to evolve from perfection... As for being off topic, denying ignorance is never off topic here at ATS, and there's a serious need for denying around here...

Why The Fort Hood Shooter Was Able To Purchase A Gun Despite Serious Mental Health Issues

The above link proves the need more than ever...

reply to post by Mirthful Me


Now you see my point. Thank you.

An odd twist...he apparently bought the gun in the same place the 2009 Ft Hood shooter bought his. At least that's what is being reported.

ETA: Denying ignorance? You apparently missed pages of people piling onto the President in a thread about a shooting.

Mirthful Me
I come from a long line of smug primates, no reason to evolve from perfection...

As for being off topic, denying ignorance is never off topic here at ATS, and there's a serious need for denying around here...

you, sir/ma'am(made that mistake once already), are going on my list of favorite mods..

>mass shooting occurs.
>first thing people do is begin to argue about the 2nd ammendment and gun control.
>one side says: "we should have some tighter, better enforced regulations on gun ownership."
>other side says:" no, my interpretation of the constitution guarentees my right to own a firearm. "
>a 3rd or 4th side argues for completely banning firearms, or instituting a system of state-run militias to replace the military, or other miscallanious and somewhat unrealistic arguements.

>both sides argue until they're red in the face, using statistics, editorials, papers from politically alligned think tanks.

I wish we had an equally irrational, uncompromising, and radical left-wing group of users on this forum, would balance out the "right-wing"-ish rabble-rousers a bit. Instead we only have people who are fairly moderate liberals, and thus lack the passion to argue..

(background checks and etc. are a moderate position, don't kid yourselves)

radical "leftist"--> ban guns altogether, the second amendment says the right for well regulated militias (in their veiw militias are not a paramilitary mob of "patriots") have the right to bear arms, and police/state national guard fufills this position (I know there is a difference between police, national guard, and a militia, but some would point out the overlapping roles of each);

moderate --> sensible reform on present gun control laws to prevent those who are grossly irresponsible, mentally unstable, or have a history of violent/criminal behavoir from having easy access to guns.

radical "right"-->guns are guarenteed by the 2nd amendment as a safeguard against a tyrannical government, there should be no regulation on the sale of firearms, etc. (downplays "well regulated militia" to mean a decently equipped mob of some sort).

Mirthful Me
reply to post by neo96

 

I can only guess you are making a subtle innuendo, so I'll say it out loud... There is no end to the willingness of some to make as many gun laws as possible, but those same people are loathe to enforce them... Unless it suits their immediate agenda, or injures a specific party.

There... I said it...

One thing I don't understand is how are the people doing the background checks going to find out if the person who is trying to buy a gun has a mental illness? I mean are they going to make everyone who tries to buy a gun go sit down with a government shrink until that shrink clears them to own a weapon, are they going to get rid of doctor patient confidentiality, or are they going to make all shrinks tell the government who has been in their offices? Maybe I'm missing something and someone can tell me what gun control fans are proposing.

Interesting bit of MSM manipulation.

Until I came here, I was unaware that sixtreen (16) were injured. All I saw was reports of four dead. Drudge for example is still only reporting four dead, not twenty people shot.

Is it the (right) controlled media trying to downplay another mass shooting? Is it just bad reporting?

The good news is that I can find out what is really going on by coming here.

Why are some media downplaying this tragedy?

Thoughts?

I would like to know from those that currently or just recently served......

Is the stigma still there as far as mental health issues are concerned?
How easy is it to get services if a soldier has issues?
How good are the services? [therapy, weekly appointments, med. management, etc]