BREAKING: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, multiple aides shot at Congressional baseball practice

a reply to: face23785

the system was broken before obamacare, it was broken during obamacare, it will more than likely remain broken with the whatever the republicans put together... that is the fact!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

Well le'ts just wait and see, hopefully it'll be an improvement. Meanwhile, don't tolerate people spreading lies like 24 million people will die.

Back on topic:
Shooter had list of Republican names

Even more evidence he was specifically targeting Republican lawmakers. It's of note Scalise's name was not on the list, at least not according to this story. I wonder if he had planned on doing something else, but took these guys playing baseball as targets of opportunity, not realizing they had Capitol Police with them.

originally posted by: secretagent77

originally posted by: spiritualzombie

Thats why america must become strong like Russia and rid itself of the infection of SJW's and Progressives, or it will be eaten alive and die from within. Putin has strong support and so will trump if he locks up the SJW's and Progressives, don't worry, they will feed you well and keep a roof over your head for free, just like you progressives like. They might make you work for your keep, but the jobs will be for the good of the nation.

Russia strong? lol Dude, you're joking right? That little p###y 'leader'who can't even handle free speech. A bunch of rocker girls sing 'mean' about him, and he loses his mind. LOL you think that's tough?

Please explain better how Pusin Boots, the man who's scared of a Russian punk girl band, is tough. LOL. Explain to all the right wingers here how they all need a tough leader like Pusin Boots. haha

a reply to: face23785

more specifically, it seems he had a list of the house freedom caucus members....

not sure why, but I find that one kind of interesting???? aren't they the ones that are making about impossible for the house to actually come together and agree on anything?

a reply to: sycomix

No indeed, not at all uncommon in the states.

There are countless examples of recreational shooters making YouTube videos detailing their equipment, their range rigs, their bug out bags, their home defence equipment and the loadout they would use in a proper SHTF scenario, people with regular jobs, who just happen to also be prepared and armed to defend against all manner of threats, and of course, those who just love to shoot, and like to exercise their second amendment rights to the fullest extent that their state permits.

I was surprised that anyone was confused as to how someone might have fired fifty shots, given that we are talking about the United States of America. There are companies in the US, distributing extended magazines of various types and ammunition capacity, through outlets large and small. Heck, if you can by an AR15 in your local Walmart, imagine what dedicated sporting and shooting goods stores will have lying around!

It does not take a genius or specialised knowledge, to know that there is a great deal of interesting equipment knocking about in private hands in the US. Heck, I know that, and I live here in Britain!

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Gunman was said to have a long rifle. Sniper?

Long rifle or long gun can refer to a wide variety of firearms.

I first heard that said by the coroner at sandy hook. What sort of firearms is it referring to?

thanks

Thanks for the explanation

Usually a hunting rifle like a 308. Long rifles really are not any different from an assault rifle they just look less menacing. But in reality just as dangerous.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: sycomix

Heck, if you can by an AR15 in your local Walmart, imagine what dedicated sporting and shooting goods stores will have lying around!

The biggest problem here in the US, at the moment, is the above is true, in some states and not true in others.

Not every state has an NCIC background check in addition to needing a purchase permit that has been vetted by way of federal authorities. Where I live, in NJ, you need to go through all the above and handguns are a completely different beast altogether. One cannot simply get a purchase permit for a handgun that lasts a lifetime the same way you can with a longrifle. Anytime you wish to purchase a handgun, you have to re-register with the local authorities and upon successful vetting, are issued a 90 day right to purchase. The right to carry a handgun though, NJ has one of the strictest policies in the country. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it to be honest, but a small excerpt below is the requirement to carry.

No-Issue for ordinary citizens. New Jersey calls its permit a "permit to carry a handgun" and is a "may-issue" by law for firearm carry, either openly or concealed, but permits are rarely or never granted to the general populace. Permit applicants must "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." Then it must be approved by both the township's police chief and a NJ judge, whereas the applicant will not know who denied the $200 application to carry. As a result of this tough standard, New Jersey is effectively a "no issue" state unless one is a retired law enforcement officer or an individual with political connections. Armed security officers and armored car drivers typically get restricted permits limited to carry while on duty only. A letter of need from the security company is required.

Then, in stark contrast, in other states, you can practically walk into your local grocery store, flash your drivers license and come away with the same products. So conceivably, someone from NJ can drive all the way to Nevada (as an example) buy what they want, and bring it back home. You're supposed to register any firearms with local authorities, but a lot don't because of the fear (whether reasonable or not) that a "round-up list" can be created in the event that Governmental entities wished to take away their firearms.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Here's the problem with restricting purchsse:

Person A wants a handgun to do a dirty deed, but he can't legally buy one. So he can just target a house that has handguns in it, case the joint for a few days, learn the work hours, what alarms are in place, when the neighbors are home, etc. Then he breaks in, takes the guns, maybe takes some jewelry or electronics for his time, and disappears. If he's any good at all, he will not be caught; most break-ins are never solved.

It took less time than a background check, and he just made a profit instead of handing over cash.

Or, he could find a friend who has a handgun and slip his friend a couple hundred bucks. His friend gives him the gun, he ransacks his friend's house, making sure to only take or destroy what insurance can replace, and his friend provides cover by implicating people other than him. The friend makes some $$$, he gets his gun and loot free and clear, and the police have no idea where to look.

In both cases, insurance pays the homeowner for a new gun and whatever loot was missing. The insurance companies pass the costs on to all their policyholders, and we all just paid for a criminal to get a gun.

That goes on a lot more than you would think.

Or, there's a third route... there are literally entire gun dealerships that operate out of a white van. If you got the $$$, they got something that kills. A lot of those guns come not from homes, but from government disposal programs and local law enforcement armories, and are the kind that everyone seems to be so worried about. It's more dangerous to go that route... these are not nice people... but it is possible. It's also a gateway to more and more violent crime, because now one is dealing with hardened criminals.

This last group is the real problem, but just like the War on Drugs has only caused the rise of drug cartels and cemented the problem, so the War on Guns has done so with weapons cartels.

In my early years, I got close enough to both see how these things work and to know to veer off to avoid them. I had a few friends not so lucky... they got involved, just a little, and I think two are still alive, both serving hard time. This is what we should be screaming about, but, in typical human fashion, we seem to prefer screaming about Farmer Jones who has a few rifles and shotguns lying around for varmints (both 2- and 4-legged).

TheRedneck

a reply to: alphabetaone

And yet if you look at the firearm murder rate (these stats are from 2011, did a quick search, there may be more recent data), New Jersey is barely below Arizona's rate. 3.07 per 100K people in NJ as opposed to 3.53 in Arizona. Washington DC, which has very strict gun control, has the highest firearm murder rate of any state/district at 12.46 per 100K people.

If gun control worked, the states should show a general pattern, with the highest gun controlled states having the lowest firearm murder rates up to the weakest gun control states having the highest rates, with maybe one or two anomalies like DC (that's a helluvan anomaly). That's not what the data shows though, it shows a random distribution. Some strongly gun controlled states do have low rates, such as Hawaii at 0.07 per 100K people. Yet some weak gun control states, such as Montana, also have low rates (0.76). California, very strong gun control, is middle of the road, 3.25, and actually higher than Alaska (2.24) which has comparatively weak gun control laws.

Anybody good at data analytics? This data means that the availability of guns is not the most significant contributing factor to the gun homicide rate. If it was, the data would show that lower availability gets you lower gun homicide rates. Population density actually has more impact on it, statistically.

A similar thing happens if you compare firearm robbery rates and firearm assault rates. There's no correlation between strong gun control and low rates. It's a random pattern, more influenced by population density overall.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Yep. I've actually been witness to almost all of those goings-on.


As a staunch firearms owner myself, I have no vested interest, honestly, in more restrictions but in fewer. However, I also don't, though I am biased, overlook how firearms are being abused by completely irresponsible or psychotic individuals.


Of course, the most egregious of events are going to be the ones that get the most reporting. You certainly don't see a breaking news report everytime a responsible firearm owner has absolutely nothing of interest happen simply due to their responsible handling of their firearms. As a result, of course "firearms" will have that stigma then placed upon them.


With respect to this incident in particular, no amount of vetting in the world at point-of-sale would have prevented what occurred. In fact, I will go so far as to say that nothing at all could have prevented it. People CAN say that "well if the proper authorities would have been watching his facebook...." yada yada...but how many of those same people cry foul about Governmental snooping and big brother? Let's face it folks we cant have it every way we want it and horrific things WILL happen as they have since man was man, but attempting to compartmentalize every human attribute into a singular bucket such that we can prevent these things from happening "when we want" is only possible in the make-believe world of minority report.


Ive taken a lot of flack from certain individuals in this thread because my choosing not to judge the perpetrator on his actions, in their view becomes one of condoning it. It is not condoning it, it is the cognizance that the guy, for whatever his misguided reasons, believed that SOMEONE had to pay for their crimes (whatever he thought those crimes were)...so he fought back in the only way he knew how to...with deadly force against what is likely completely unrelated persons. He, however, also paid the ultimate price for the decision to take things into his own hands...he lived by the sword and he died by the sword. I would rather live in a country (like ours is now) where a person, any person can have the freedom to make that choice and where they will face the consequences of those choices (as he did) than constantly being told on a daily basis what it is I can and cannot do; what it is I can and cannot say; what laws I may potentially be breaking by expressing my opinion (as evidenced by some people here who choose to view my opinions as admonishing the act and worse condoning it).

a reply to: alphabetaone

This is a very good post. I would star it twice if I could. In a free society, you'll never be able to prevent all violence. I am certainly not advocating giving up any freedoms, including of speech.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: TheRedneck
... firearms are being abused by completely irresponsible or psychotic individuals.

How do we single these people out?

How do we know one who is irresponsible at one point in their life will not become responsible at a different stage?

How do we know responsible people will not _become_ irresponsible or psychotic?

Good discussion ...

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: dawnstar

Well le'ts just wait and see, hopefully it'll be an improvement. Meanwhile, don't tolerate people spreading lies like 24 million people will die.

Back on topic:
Shooter had list of Republican names

Even more evidence he was specifically targeting Republican lawmakers. It's of note Scalise's name was not on the list, at least not according to this story. I wonder if he had planned on doing something else, but took these guys playing baseball as targets of opportunity, not realizing they had Capitol Police with them.

I was reading this earlier and found it curious. This list of republican targets definitely supports a convincing partisan political motive, but perhaps that's an intentional red herring? I don't know if anyone else is interested in/open to considering this shooting from a conspiracy theory angle, but there are facts and thoughts I want to throw out.

Specifically, I am thinking of Matt Mika, director of government relations for Tyson Foods (lobbyist), where he's worked for six years.

According to one report, Matt Mika was shot "4 or 5 times:"

By late morning, they were hearing that Mika was in surgery, said Mika's friend and former colleague David Palsrok, a former Michigan state representative.

"It sounds like he was shot four to five times," Palsrok said, after talking to Mika's brother in law. "And it sounds like he's in critical condition."

Link

He was reportedly hit once or twice in the chest.

Contrast that with the other victims that were only shot once and took lower-aimed bullets in the hip, legs.

It stands to reason that Matt Mika could have been targeted for murder...if this wasn't a random shooting.

***

Looking closely at Tyson Foods, *cough* based in Arkansas, they have been embroiled in some shady dealings over the last several decades:

The Clinton Scandal that Still Matters

Under the guidance of an attorney representing Tyson Foods, Hillary Clinton made a $98,540 profit from a $1,000 initial investment in less than one year trading commodity futures. While $98,540 may not seem like much money relative to the Clinton family’s wealth today, it exceeded Bill and Hillary’s combined annual income at the time.

Lobbying violations, SEC violations, AND a drug running investigation

Tyson Foods Indicted for Human Trafficking in 2001 (Illegal Workers)

Which recently came up again:
Stewart calls Gillespie's work for Tyson Foods 'human trafficking'

And, currently, there is an interesting link between Tyson Foods and proposed regulations regarding the Packers and Stockyards Act (Farm Bill), and it has been reported that Matt Mika has concentrated his efforts on issues related to the Farm Bill and the Committees on Agriculture:

Trump’s nominee to head the USDA, Sonny Perdue, is likely to play a major role in the outcome of the rule, and is enthusiastically supported by all of the agriculture trade groups lobbying against it. While serving as governor of Georgia, Perdue was criticized for his close relationship with agricultural companies and for leveraging his position for personal gain.

Perdue received almost $1 million in campaign contributions over the last two decades from the agriculture industry. Nearly half of those contributions were made by non-individuals, including companies like Monsanto, John Deere and Tyson Foods.

Link

Also, currently, 'Tyson Foods under federal investigation for price fixing.'


***

Anyway, I think it's premature to argue there is some conspiracy behind this shooting, but I also think it's worth considering that Matt Mika may have been targeted.

...FWIW.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

He didn't walk up and ask "Are those the Tyson Foods lobbyists out there?" He asked if it was Congress, and then asked if it was Republicans or Democrats. Your point about who was hit where assumes the guy is an expert shooter. The majority of his shots completely missed.

There's a difference between being open to other explanations, and hunting through the facts searching for one for no reason. He shot the cops too. Maybe he was targeting cops. He shot the ground a lot, maybe he hates the environment. For all we know he was hallucinating and thought he was shooting at paper targets at a proper firing range.

All the evidence suggests he was targeting Republican congressmen though.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: MotherMayEye

He didn't walk up and ask "Are those the Tyson Foods lobbyists out there?" He asked if it was Congress, and then asked if it was Republicans or Democrats. Your point about who was hit where assumes the guy is an expert shooter. The majority of his shots completely missed.

There's a difference between being open to other explanations, and hunting through the facts searching for one for no reason. He shot the cops too. Maybe he was targeting cops. He shot the ground a lot, maybe he hates the environment. For all we know he was hallucinating and thought he was shooting at paper targets at a proper firing range.

All the evidence suggests he was targeting Republican congressmen though.

No. I based nothing I wrote on that witness statement, and what you have responded with does not negate anything I wrote. In fact, what I suggested is that a partisan political motive may be a very intentional smokescreen.

Matt Mika was at that ballpark after reportedly 'volunteering' to help the Republicans practice. How he came to volunteer is not clear.

Furthermore, I just wanted to leave these facts and thoughts out there for anyone who was interested in a possible conspiracy angle.

I totally get that we are getting the narrative that this was a partisan political motivated shooting. I see you are very devoted to believing that without question. That's just terrific for you, it really, really is!

But I am not opposed to looking at other motives. Maybe other people aren't either.

originally posted by: face23785
There's a difference between being open to other explanations, and hunting through the facts searching for one for no reason. He shot the cops too. Maybe he was targeting cops. He shot the ground a lot, maybe he hates the environment. For all we know he was hallucinating and thought he was shooting at paper targets at a proper firing range.

All the evidence suggests he was targeting Republican congressmen though.

And, BTW, I did give reasons. Matt Mika was the only one shot multiple times (4 or 5) and they were more likely to be kill-shots given he was shot twice in the chest.

The ground is not going to die because he possibly hit the ground. Capitol officers aren't going to die from their ankle and calf wounds.

I resent the way you reframed my entire post to be without any reason, at all, for considering that Matt Mika may have been targeted specifically for murder. I didn't overstate anything. I was pretty damned clear.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah and I explained why none of the reasons you gave are reason to think Mika was targeted. I'll believe the evidence. If any evidence whatsoever emerges to suggest he went there to kill Mika, let me know. In the meantime, you enjoy your fairy tales.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah and I explained why none of the reasons you gave are reason to think Mika was targeted. I'll believe the evidence. If any evidence whatsoever emerges to suggest he went there to kill Mika, let me know. In the meantime, you enjoy your fairy tales.

What fairy tales, dude?

Geez. Move along if you don't like me interjecting anything except what the media is saying. Other people may be interested even if you aren't.

ETA: And BTW, other people are allowed to consider what I wrote. You aren't the 'decider' on what info is worth sharing or not.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe you should move along if you don't like your faulty logic being corrected. Other people may be interested in that even if you aren't.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm always up for some tin hattery, you know that.

Re: Tyson Foods

In 2001, Tyson was charged with conspiracy to smuggle undocumented workers to work on its production lines. Tyson plant managers arranged for delivery of illegal workers with undercover immigration officials. Prosecutors alleged that the conspiracy to import workers dates back to 1994 when plant managers began to find it difficult to fill positions with "cheap legal help". Of the six managers who were indicted, two accepted plea bargain deals, and one committed suicide one month after being charged. In March 2003, a federal jury acquitted Tyson of having knowingly hired illegal immigrants.[22][23]
...
In October 2006, a federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by Tyson employees who allege that Tyson's practice of hiring illegal immigrants depresses wages 10–30%. The suit further contends that the company violated federal racketeering laws by conspiring with National Council of La Raza and League of United Latin American Countries not to question the employment applications of anyone with a Hispanic surname.[25][26][27]

Wiki