DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass Shootings Continued..

All mass shooters are suicidal. Just saying. That’s where we need to put the focus.

Plenty of armed nuts out there...live in Fl, wife/mother/doc office worker told me she's upset with her husband buying wrong gun for her...wants something smaller/easier to get out....everyone in Fl soon will be packing......ain't it great- all the flower power/ love is all you need seniors have breed gun lovers ready to kill....WOW!!

Ready to kill or ready to defend themselves in a country where crime is on the rise and folks try to excuse the criminals because they're poor?

I’m pretty sure trump and his brigade aren’t poor, and they’re not merely trying to excuse his crimes. They are actually succeeding.

I’m pretty sure it’s not flower power seniors leading the gun culture in the USA.

He's just here doing the exact same thing he's accusing others of. I guess the guy with the AR-15 that shot his neighbor's family for asking him to stop firing his AR-15 in his yard keeping their baby awake must have done so to protect himself from all those criminals. Or the guy that shot some kid for knocking on his door was the same. Or they guy who shot the girls in the car for pulling into the wrong driveway must be the same.

Murica!

Texas shooting suspect Francisco Oropesa is still at large more than two days after he allegedly murdered five people, including an eight-year-old boy, over a noise complaint.

On Friday, Mr Oropesa, 38, allegedly shot his neighbours in Cleveland, Texas, with an AR-15 style rifle after they asked him to stop firing rounds in his yard because the children were trying to sleep.

Five victims – Sonia Argentina Guzman, 25,her eight-year-old son Daniel Enrique Laso, Diana Velazquez Alvarado, 21, Julisa Molina Rivera, 31, and Josué Jonatán Cáceres, 18 – were killed in the attack.

Mr Oropesa, who is originally from Mexico, went on the run. He is considered armed and dangerous and police admitted on Sunday that they have “zero leads” as to his whereabouts.

Where did he get the gun? Did he buy it legally or did he buy it from an underground source or maybe at a gun show? Anyone know?

I have no idea. But I mean just go to a gun show and you can buy one in the parking lot. No paperwork, no background check. And it's legal. Of course you know, people fight closing that loophole because it's about rights. Yeah, the right to sell a criminal a gun in a gun show parking lot sounds so logical.

Here's a guy who clearly shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.,.,, Gov. Abbot made a point of him being an immigrant. Should an immigrant be allowed to buy a gun in the US? I'd think not. but the republicans don't care. The Gun Lobby want's the to be able to so they let them. It's his states laws that he accepts and approves of that allowed him to get a gun.. JMO however. I think I'm right.

Asking for clarity for myself.

I though Abbott pointed out that the victims were illegal immigrants.
Am I mistaken about that?
Did he actually make a point of the shooter being an immigrant?
Or did he do both?

Federally you are not allowed to purchase a firearm if you are:
"Are you an alien illegally on unlawfully in the United States"

I think you're right... an illegal immigrant shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun

Shooter had been deported 4 times.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/01/us/cleveland-texas-neighbor-shooting-monday/index.html

Probably a good chance he made it back to Mexico by now.

So, how was this guy able to get a gun? Daman and left will blame the Republicans [of course] but is there a chance that the guy got the gun through illegal means? Just like folks would still be able to get guns should the gun laws become much more strict? Just asking...

Who should be to blame? Did Dems make gun buying easier. No that was the NRA owned Republicans.

As for Legal vs Illegal means of getting a gun, damn man, if you go to gun shows, you can get anything you want.. Who allows that? Republicans or Dems?

That's one loophole that could be fixed.

The other thing is simple. If you are firing an illegally owned gun, the police can be called and action can be taken. But if it's legal, nothing the cops can do until an attack takes place. By then, someone is probably already dead....

Like I've said a million times, a gun, any gun won't hurt anyone if left on a shelf untouched. But when idiots allow anyone to own a gun, things like this happen.

So, how do we deal with all this... Red Flag Laws.... enhanced background checks.... close the gun show rules... That's a start...

Reading is hard.

If you are prohibited from buying a gun the how you do it is still illegal.

Most places have separate laws concerning discharge that won't take into account how you bought it. I can't just stand in my yard shooting guns in the air.

What "the left" is doing here is pointing out the "fact" that the law makes it very easy for anyone, legal or not to purchase a firearm and something should be done about that. It's the typical argument from the right that hates we are pointing that out and blaming us for doing so. Anyone, legal or not can walk into a gun show or even into a gun show parking lot and buy a gun with no questions asked.

But rather than address that you blame people for stating that. What a joke.

One thing that has been asked for, and continues to not happen, is for individuals to be able access NICS. That would allow me to run the same background check a FFL would before purchase.

Yeah, that's what would happen. Uncle Billy would be running a background check in the parking lot at the gun show.

I had heard that. My question was more about Abbott.
I know he made a comment about the victims being illegal aliens. But I had not heard that he commented on the shooter

The FBI has a very loose definition of what constitutes a "mass shooting", there is no specific number of casualties required to qualify.. other folks who track stats use whatever stats they want to define something that way... some as low as 2 casualties...

I think, and have thought for a long time, that there needs to be 2 classifications.. one for gang violence, domestic violence, etc. where there is a clearly defined target... and a second category for the more random shootings where somebody goes in and shoots up a crowd, a workplace, or a school and the goal is to maximize casualties with relative disregard for the who the casualties are...

The fact that we spend more time talking about the stats, how to track it, how to quantify it, than we do how to stop it is also quite telling.

Unless it has changed since 2013, the FBI defines mass shootings as incidents where four or more people are killed.


Mass Shootings

Mass shootings include mass murders and spree killings. They are conducted by one or more “active shooters.” The FBI defines mass shootings as “Four or more murders occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involve a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident.” There may or may not be additional persons injured in such events. With exceptions, many acts of mass murder end with the death of the perpetrator(s), whether by direct suicide or being killed by law enforcement personnel.

https://eden.cce.cornell.edu/security/mass-shootings/

It is quite true that what constitutes a mass shooting varies depending on who you ask. The most often definition I have found that is used is an incident where four or more people are shot and either wounded or killed in a single incident. Which seems more appropriate to me. I mean after all it's called a mass shooting and not a mass killing.

I knew the FBI defined a "mass killing" as 3 or more dead.. I was unaware they had a number for a "mass shooting" incident. I thought it was more about the circumstances than the number of injuries.

. "We need to do something!"

Followed by "No no something else!"

Never ending cycle with some people.

The never ending cycle is pretending Uncle Billy will be doing background checks in the gun show parking lot. Some fables write themselves.

I've known a lot of people that like to sell at gun shows and have bemoaned not being able to run a NICS check.

But since someone might not use it then we shouldn't try it. Typical.

Sure man.

Just wondering...........if the guy is an illegal immigrant that has been deported multiple times and he obtained his gun illegally, how in the hell are the Republicans to blame, as Daman stated?

If he is a US citizen who legally obtained his gun, I will retract what I said. But, I think it's beyond irresponsible that everytime there is a shooting, folks on the left come out and start blaming the Republicans before they even know the facts of the case. It's not a joke.

Since questions seem to be what you're asking, why is it you think that it remaining legal for anyone to purchase a weapon from a private citizen would do anything to prevent any convicted felon or illegal immigrant from buying a gun?

You see, I can sell any firearm I own to anyone else with no background check required. People do it all the time. I can walk around a gun show and sell my guns to anyone else walking around that wants to purchase that weapon without any background check required. Why? Because I'm not a licensed gun dealer so it's legal.

You can make the claim that making it so easy to buy a weapon without a background check isn't a problem, but it is. Republicans are the one who fight any form of responsible gun legislation including the one I just told you about. It's like leaving your keys in the car and then asking if the guy who stole your car was here legally or not. Does it really matter when you made it so easy to steal your car for anyone?

Can anyone tell me what Pit's post has to do w/what I said in mine?

It's a rhetorical question.

The fact is that blaming the Republicans or the Democrats is short-sighted at best and it is beyond ignorant to assign blame before the facts are in. Again, an illegal immigrant obtaining a gun illegally is not the fault of the Republicans. All the gun laws in the world will not rid the world of guns. The criminals will still be able to get their hands on them just like they do w/other illegal things like drugs, sex w/minors, etc.

So the fact that an illegal can walk into a gun show and purchase a weapon that is "being sold to him legally" doesn't make any difference in how easy it is for any convicted felon or illegal to purchase a firearm? And naming who it is that's fighting to keep that legal means nothing? You either are willing to discuss laws that need to be repaired that contribute to these shootings or you wish to isolate the entire topic to one specific shooting.

In case you missed it, the topic is "Mass Shootings", not "Mass Shooting". As an English teacher I'm pretty sure you comprehend the difference between single and plural uses of a word.

Willful ignorance by Republicans that do not believe in background checks or registration requirements for guns. The system is simply set up facilitate the transfer of guns and it becomes "illegal" only when the gun is used to kill another person. Then they blame the system, because there is no system.

Here is the gist, Republicans should not complain when someone (illegal alien or citizen) obtains a gun "illegally" when Republicans have been failed to pass laws that would require background checks or registration requirements.

If we applied the same logic as voting (also a right) as to guns, we would be in a better position. You want to vote? Need address, proof of citizenship, and other pertinent information. You move, you have to notify or re-register or you can't vote. There are 4 amendments to the constitution alone on voting.

It would be better if there was registration and transfer requirements like autos/driving, but that is probably too much to ask. I would prefer to see classes of gun ownership, with AR-15 and AK-47's and other types of guns with high magazine capability or rapid fire capability restricted. If you want to sell a gun, need a background check and other pertinent information.

This is probably framed in a way he will accept. At least the first part of it.

It is illegal for any undocumented immigrant to possess a firearm. So if the question is did he illegally possess the gun, yes. However there is no requirement for any private owner of a gun to check the background or legal status of anyone purchasing a gun from them.

So the catch 22 in all of this as I have been pointing out is that his purchase of the firearm was illegal but the sale of that firearm to him was most likely legal. And pointing out who it is that has been keeping this legal seems to be the point that's being objected to. And that's the nit they wish to pick.

I think the last two posts clearly lay out why guns being obtained by anyone illegally is made easier by the legislation that is in place. I think any reasonable person would accept that broadly speaking the political party actively and adamantly resisting any sort of addition or changes to the legislation regarding guns and any part of gun ownership is the Republicans. I mean really that's pretty darn straight forward. I'd certainly be interested in an alternate perspective.

It's amazing at how folks go to great lengths to change the narrative. Are you really saying that criminals would not be able to get guns if it were not for Republicans and that Republicans don't care that people are being murdered? Because, that is what I objected to in Daman's post.

Y'all stick together, though. It's what you do. The truth is not important. It's about winning political debates.

What's amazing is you asked a question and someone answered. Now that you don't like the answer you are off on a rant and claiming posters are changing the narrative.

These are the consequences of not having stronger laws and regulations regarding gun ownership and the sale of firearms. We can parse if they are unintended or intended direct or indirect, but either way they are consequences.

Nothing is absolute, and of course most Republicans do care about people being murdered. However, their approach to gun control allows for easier sale and transfer of guns (especially guns capable of hold a larger magazine and/or the ability to be rapidly fired) to criminals and non criminals alike and ultimately results in more mass shootings / murders being committed. It is something that has been obvious since the Brady Bill expired, then Sandy Hook, and more recently with the Uvalde shootings. And those shooters were not criminals at the time of purchase - unfortunately that changed.

Their response... Thoughts and Prayers to the victims.

One more thought. This is not a Republican or Democrat problem, it is an American (as in the We the People) problem. But the Republicans own this issue to a greater degree.