LBGTQ bar shooting.

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
In todays instant internet upload world no one has uploaded a video yet from what happened inside the club or outside the club?

That's mostly true of all the suspicious mass shootings of the last decades. Supposedly the covert operators can broadcast some kind of jamming signal during the event, disabling all the I-phone cameras.

Or the simple explanation is when people start shooting other people start worrying about living and escaping rather than pulling out a phone to capture video?

a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

That may be because your country has too many guns in circulation and it's beyond finding solutions.

a reply to: quintessentone

That's because the only thing anyone wants to pretend is a solution is to ban firearms. Unfortunately, self-defense is a right and firearms are a large part of having that right. There are other reasons that self-defense for it, but we've gone over it.

At any rate, it's interesting how little is known given that the club goers were the ones who stopped this. They say the gunman is injured? It's likely because he was beat down in the stopping, my guess.

So no one is talking. Usually, when the people inside are instrumental in stopping this type of thing, we hear about it. So why the silence?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

Which law would he have broken? If you put laws into place (let's say, a background check required to purchase a firearm) then financially gut the organization that's performing the background checks (something about government being too big or something) then you really shouldn't bring out the shocked pikachu face when it doesnt actually function as it intends.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

That may be because your country has too many guns in circulation and it's beyond finding solutions.

Maybe people should learn to read existing laws.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A quick google search will show you that this is not the only bar shooting this year by far, but it's the only one I see being called a "hate attack". I guess the other shootings were loving because it wasn't a gay bar?

C hattanooga shooting: 3 dead, 14 injured

Stupid people do stupid things.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

Which law would he have broken? If you put laws into place (let's say, a background check required to purchase a firearm) then financially gut the organization that's performing the background checks (something about government being too big or something) then you really shouldn't bring out the shocked pikachu face when it doesnt actually function as it intends.

It's the GOD DAMN FBI that performs EVERY SINGLE firearm transaction in this country. Because it's LAW.

originally posted by: JinMI
And yet we have no mugshot.

Curious.

He's in the hospital.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

If what I'm seeing is correct, it's a combination of things and mental illness is one component meaning that it's not the only component although it is part of the puzzle.

There is commonality with a lot of the shooters. They happen to be young disaffected males. They don't happen to hold to any particular ideology meaning they are just as likely to be left as right as nothing clear at all. The biggest factors are that they are young and socially ill-adjusted, often with poorly addressed mental issues.

They tend to get online where they isolate even more and seek out strange places where they latch on to anything they can and end up radicalizing. At some point, they go off the deep end and we see the consequences.

My overall takeaway is that society in general is hostile to young males, and we're losing them and this is what we see as the outcome.

yes,

ithink he was dumped by his boyfriend.

went in to show them
so a revenge thing, i think.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Boadicea

So , it could then be Surmised that there is a Possibility of a LBGTQ Hate on LBGTQ Hate Crime here and Not the Implied Standard Definition of One by the MSM ?

Sure. People can surmise whatever they so choose. Doesn't make anyone right. Doesn't make it good. But folks believe lots of stuff with no evidence.

But for all we know, it could be anyone at this point.

We'll know soon enough. I'm happy to wait for more facts. No need to speculate.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

Which law would he have broken? If you put laws into place (let's say, a background check required to purchase a firearm) then financially gut the organization that's performing the background checks (something about government being too big or something) then you really shouldn't bring out the shocked pikachu face when it doesnt actually function as it intends.

It's the GOD DAMN FBI that performs EVERY SINGLE firearm transaction in this country. Because it's LAW.

It's an automated process. Otherwise it would be too costly. Its inadequate. It's literally harder to buy certain cars than it is to purchase a firearm. A. Vehicle.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

Which law would he have broken? If you put laws into place (let's say, a background check required to purchase a firearm) then financially gut the organization that's performing the background checks (something about government being too big or something) then you really shouldn't bring out the shocked pikachu face when it doesnt actually function as it intends.

It's the GOD DAMN FBI that performs EVERY SINGLE firearm transaction in this country. Because it's LAW.

It's an automated process. Otherwise it would be too costly. Its inadequate. It's literally harder to buy certain cars than it is to purchase a firearm. A. Vehicle.

LIE.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

It doesn't change the fact that in this case, all the laws in place should have prevented this person from having a gun meaning he broke the law to have one or the laws didn't work.

You can make more laws, but why do you think those will work any better?

We have already established that for a variety of reasons, you are not going to reduce access to guns for those who want them and they do not get them through legal channels in a majority of cases - either flagrantly breaking the law or getting them despite laws that should have prevented them from having one.

Which law would he have broken? If you put laws into place (let's say, a background check required to purchase a firearm) then financially gut the organization that's performing the background checks (something about government being too big or something) then you really shouldn't bring out the shocked pikachu face when it doesnt actually function as it intends.

It's the GOD DAMN FBI that performs EVERY SINGLE firearm transaction in this country. Because it's LAW.

It's an automated process. Otherwise it would be too costly. Its inadequate. It's literally harder to buy certain cars than it is to purchase a firearm. A. Vehicle.

LIE.

What's a lie? Which part? Quote it? Here's nics btw:

www.fbi.gov...


The dealer literally calls the number, enters some information, and an automated system responds based on a query. Which part was the lie? Please quote it.

Additionally, if you dont want to call you go here:
nicsezcheckfbi.gov...

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Ahem, it is the government who does background checks.

But I am all for gutting government financially. The bureaucracy is way too large to function efficiently.

a reply to: sarahvital

I'm not going there.

I just think it's strange that normally there would be all kinds of speculation. The press would be all up in the faces of the people inside. We know they are talking hate for some reason, but if it was the easiest reason, then they would be interviewing club goers. It could still be that, but that they have everything so locked down tells me there is another wrinkle at work.

We had more coming out of the club in Florida at this point and it was far worse. It was also a "standard" hate crime if you can call any of them standard.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

The part where you IGNORE ATF form 4473 has to be filled out for EVERY purchase.

It's the form Hunter Biden LIED on which is a FELONY.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Ahem, it is the government who does background checks.

But I am all for gutting government financially. The bureaucracy is way too large to function efficiently.

Yes, a branch of the government that doesnt have adequate funding to conduct actual background checks so instead a lookup is used. Inadequate.

You were saying something about currently existing laws would have prevented a purchase of a firearm? Which ones? An actual background check performed by a person might have, but that costs money - something you just admitted to not wanting to pay for.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

The part where you IGNORE ATF form 4473 has to be filled out for EVERY purchase.

It's the form Hunter Biden LIED on which is a FELONY.

Filling out a form isnt a background check you are aware of this correct? It's almost as if you've never purchased a firearm. I purchased my first one at 18. A Romanian 47 from a pawn shop in Benton Arkansas.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Stop embarrassing yourself and watch the god damn video I linked.