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

Leonidas
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?

No one is trying to down play this even but when a tragic event like this happens and reporters are trying to get info out as fast as they can they make mistakes. Drudge did the good thing not reporting a false number of people injured with all the confusion. This event has been anything but downplayed from "the right controlled media" and there are usually more then one report on every right wing website with updates.

Edit: Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't seem like 20 or 16 people got shot just hurt during the shooting which leaves speculation. I mean if someone breaks their ankle running away from the shooter wouldn't they count him as being injured? I know they said 4 of the 16 who had been injured during the shooting had been treated and released from the hospital yesterday so I would think maybe they where not shot. Again I could be wrong and this is just speculation.

Sources say the shooter was being treated for mental illness previous to the shooting. To me this is key, because whenever someone is being treated for a serious mental illness they sometimes give them crazy drugs that I feel like helps the downfall of the patient. I feel like there is a trend in psychopathic shootings. Not that they are all psycho, but that they all are being or have been treated for a mental illness with prescribed drugs. Who is really at fault here?

NonsensicalUserName
>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).

the problem with your argument is that you see firearm ownership as an individual right as being someone's "interpretation" of the constitution, instead of understanding that you may not have a firm grasp on the language that was used in the drafting of the constitution....there are SO many differences between the english language as it was used then, versus how it is used now. understanding english as it was used in the 1700's is key to understanding the constitution properly.

let's take a look...

"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

when this was written, there were 13 colonies....and when we declared independence, the plan was to have a union of 13 independent states, under the federal banner....each state had it's own militia, for primarily defensive purposes..

the militia was made up of the citizenry. each citizen owned their own weapons and equipment, and when called upon, they would rally, and go to work....this is the well-regulated bit...in their terms it was a reference to them being properly armed and equipped to act in a capacity consistent with the task of the defense of their state..

if the citizenry isn't allowed to be armed, they can't very well form a militia for ANY reason, now can they?

then there's the second bit....the right of the people(citizens) to keep(own) and bear(carry) arms(weapons) shall not(will not) be infringed(restricted, limited, reduced, etc)

in today's language (best approximation i can muster) it basically comes out as "an armed citizenry, being essential to maintaining the freedom of a state, The right of the people to own and carry weapons will not be limited"

the right to own arms is NOT directly connected to service in a militia. but your right to own arms guarantees you'll be able to serve in one, if need be....

Fort Hood Victim Identified As Sgt. Timothy Owens By Family

RIP.

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

Well, it's neither sir, nor ma'am... I worked for a living, but if you need to know, I can write my name in the snow... In cursive...

Provided I've had enough mod lubricant...



Thanks for the mod-love...

~Lucidity
Fort Hood Victim Identified As Sgt. Timothy Owens By Family

RIP.

damn... -salute-

Mirthful Me

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

Well, it's neither sir, nor ma'am... I worked for a living, but if you need to know, I can write my name in the snow... In cursive...

Provided I've had enough mod lubricant...

Thanks for the mod-love...

well that's the thing, another mod i'm friendly with, i kept calling them "dude", not knowing that they're not a dude...felt dumb as hell when i found out, lol

so now i tread lightly until i know for sure...

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


I totally agree with you. Me interpretation of the second amendment is. If you are part of a well regulated militia then fell free to grab a musket and protect your state.

Idiosonic
reply to post by NonsensicalUserName

 

I totally agree with you. Me interpretation of the second amendment is. If you are part of a well regulated militia then fell free to grab a musket and protect your state.

What's your ideal position on gun control? Would you make it extremely hard for normal people to own a gun, would you do an out right ban, or just ban "assault weapons"?

Edit: You asked how did someone who was being treated with mental illness get a gun well in America we have a thing called doctor patient confidentiality and we don't allow shrinks to tell the police who their patients are unless they know for a fact they are a danger someone or themselves. You also said one of our problems is Americans allow rednecks to own war zone weapons which again is false American soldiers don't use semi automatic AR 15 or guns of that nature, I'm not a fan of guns and even I know that. A little over 300 people die each year due to long guns which include suicide, police shooting a suspect, self defense, ect. Come on man I think you need to do a little more research on guns. Just because very strict gun control works in parts of Europe and Japan doesn't mean it would work the same here.

Daedalus

NonsensicalUserName

the right to own arms is NOT directly connected to service in a militia. but your right to own arms guarantees you'll be able to serve in one, if need be....

But this was before America had an actual army. It is irrelevant today. It doesn't cover "Steve's" (generic name) Right to own AR-15's with 100 round magazines and 3 shotguns and 12 handguns (Basically an excess of guns) as Steve would have you believe.

It gives Steve the right to grab a musket and defend "Kentucky" (random state) from the enemy

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog


I think making it harder for anyone to own guns. Not crazy hard but not childs play. Also a cap on the amount of ammo one magazine can hold, you don't need 100 round clips. And the amount of guns one can own (collectors licenses issued to collectors permitting more guns owned) you don't need 50 guns. And atleast make people keep it in a safe or locked place, leaving it lying around for a kid to grab is idiotic

Something needs to change, yet no one wants to make it as the NRA and gun nuts will villainize them and run them out of town. "there tryin to take ma guns!!"


Edit" Dr - Patient confidentiality needs to be thrown out of the window when purchasing a gun. That is all upto the judgement of a doctor.

Idiosonic
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

I think making it harder for anyone to own guns. Not crazy hard but not childs play. Also a cap on the amount of ammo one magazine can hold, you don't need 100 round clips. And the amount of guns one can own (collectors licenses issued to collectors permitting more guns owned) you don't need 50 guns. And atleast make people keep it in a safe or locked place, leaving it lying around for a kid to grab is idiotic

Something needs to change, yet no one wants to make it as the NRA and gun nuts will villainize them and run them out of town. "there tryin to take ma guns!!"

How is any of those idea's going to stop the majority of criminals from getting guns? The only people who will follow those laws are honest citizens not the criminals. The vast majority of people who are killing people aren't using 100 round clips nor own 50 guns. I agree along with the vast majority of actual gun owners that you shouldn't leave a gun out for a kid. You want to bring of "guns nuts" villainizing gun control supporters when a lot of gun control supporters have threaten to kill NRA members, kill their families, blame the school shooting on them, lie, and call them every name in the book.

Idiosonic
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

I think making it harder for anyone to own guns. Not crazy hard but not childs play. Also a cap on the amount of ammo one magazine can hold, you don't need 100 round clips. And the amount of guns one can own (collectors licenses issued to collectors permitting more guns owned) you don't need 50 guns. And atleast make people keep it in a safe or locked place, leaving it lying around for a kid to grab is idiotic

Something needs to change, yet no one wants to make it as the NRA and gun nuts will villainize them and run them out of town. "there tryin to take ma guns!!"


Edit" Dr - Patient confidentiality needs to be thrown out of the window when purchasing a gun. That is all upto the judgement of a doctor.

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

How are doctors going to know when a patient has bought a gun? If you really think the ACLU and the majority of Liberals would allow for doctor patient confidentiality to be thrown out and allow the government to stigmatize people with mental illness you have another thing coming. Would you be fine if the government expanded the patriot act allowing the NSA to spy on anyone they suspect owns a gun and allow the police to be able to search anyone's personal property without a warrant or probable cause so they can stop gun violence?

Edit: Would you be fine if the government had a public list of people who have been diagnosed with mental illness so the public can look for warning signs of people trying to commit mass murders?

reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog



No, simply a doctors referral or O.K to buy a gun

Idiosonic
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

I think making it harder for anyone to own guns. Not crazy hard but not childs play. Also a cap on the amount of ammo one magazine can hold, you don't need 100 round clips. And the amount of guns one can own (collectors licenses issued to collectors permitting more guns owned) you don't need 50 guns. And atleast make people keep it in a safe or locked place, leaving it lying around for a kid to grab is idiotic

Something needs to change, yet no one wants to make it as the NRA and gun nuts will villainize them and run them out of town. "there tryin to take ma guns!!"


Edit" Dr - Patient confidentiality needs to be thrown out of the window when purchasing a gun. That is all upto the judgement of a doctor.

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

And at least make people keep it in a safe or locked place, leaving it lying around for a kid to grab is idiotic
Nope, it idiotic to own a gun for protection and have to unlock a safe to get at it.
Guess what, I and all my neighborhood grew up with guns in every closet, guns hanging over the door, the mantlepiece....guns everywhere! Literally. We were trained to use them by the time we were 7 or 8 years old and we KNEW that they killed things. Furthermore, we knew that if we messed with them without permission from an adult, immediate and painful punishment would be visited upon us. Here's the difference---as kids we weren't drugged to make us docile.
My children were raised the same way, taught to shoot as soon as they expressed interest. They knew that the pistol beside the bed was a tool that they were not allowed to touch, just like they weren't allowed to touch the equally deadly tools (power saws, drills press, etc.) in the workshop without an adult present. They knew that guns were used to kill things, like deer, rabbits, squirrels and venomous snakes.
My grandchildren were raised the same way. None of us have ever picked up a gun and gone on a shooting spree. But then, none of us are drugged by Big Pharma either.
I have defended myself and my husband with a gun---just showing it, didn't even have to point it. Had that gun been locked away in a safe, I might well be a widow today instead of a happily married woman.
You are perfectly free to rely on someone else to protect you from bad guys but you are not free to infringe on my right as a 120 lb. woman to protect myself.

influencetheabove
Sources say the shooter was being treated for mental illness previous to the shooting. To me this is key, because whenever someone is being treated for a serious mental illness they sometimes give them crazy drugs that I feel like helps the downfall of the patient. I feel like there is a trend in psychopathic shootings. Not that they are all psycho, but that they all are being or have been treated for a mental illness with prescribed drugs. Who is really at fault here?

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point.

I can't help but think maybe they are conditioning the public to believe that those who seem different (those who have different beliefs or ideas) are probably crazy and maybe even dangerous. And while it's undeniable that crazy people exist and are indeed sometimes dangerous, the vast majority of people (even if they are somewhat mentally ill) are not at all dangerous.

I believe they are working towards mandatory "treatment" for "mental illness". And of course, new "mental illness" (such as some modern American equivalent to "sluggish schizophrenia") will inevitably be created. And naturally, these will be the people most in need of "special treatment".

And finally, since Obamacare basically puts all healthcare under government control, mental health will obviously be subject to their whims as well.

Recruiting policies are lighter than emigration policies.
In fact, joining the Armed Sevices is a great way to become a citzen -
or infiltrate a country, depending on how you look at the policies.
From the "I don't have to be a citizen of this county to be handed a gun with the assumption that I'll defend it" aspect,
I can see it possibly being abused. Oh you're surprised at that? LOL You're probably American. Get used to it.

Okay so the bullsh!t passed and the after all the Muslim bashing on ATS, the suspicious tirade of hate that has spewed on this thread (And many others), where are the presumptuous folks now?

I don't know what's worse, listen to the garbage being spewed by the likes of Fox News and CNN or the folks here on ATS...where has the objectivity gone? People on here used to be very good amateur journalists but I saw none of that on this thread and believe me I went through most if not all posts (as any sensible person should before answering).

This thread like others is swings and roundabouts (a UK term) i.e. going from one hateful assumption to another, pathetic, really is pathetic.

Always some shill trying to stir the pot when any sensible objective thinker will look at the facts and realise this was a lot closer to home than imagined (and it turned out to be the case).

At least not to insult the wounded and/or dead, try to think before spouting garbage.

Idiosonic
But this was before America had an actual army. It is irrelevant today.

Incorrect. At the time of the adoption of the 2nd amendment(1791), the United States Army had already been officially created by the congress of the confederation(predecessor of the 1st U.S. Congress), and before that, there was the Continential Army, which was disbanded, following the conclusion of the revolutionary war.

so we had an "actual army", at the time the 2nd amendment was adopted...obviously, the right of the citizens to be armed, and to be able to come together for the common defense was still seen as relevant, and a thing of value. it is no less relevant today, than it was in 1791.

and i find it highly annoying that you feel the need to use terms like "actual army", as if a militia can't be just as capable of providing defense as a standing federal army regiment would be. you need to let go of programmed misconceptions that only the government is allowed to do certain things, and that everyone else is illegal, or "wannabes"

It doesn't cover "Steve's" (generic name) Right to own AR-15's with 100 round magazines and 3 shotguns and 12 handguns (Basically an excess of guns) as Steve would have you believe.

incorrect again.....muskets were the 18th century's AR-15....it was the most common long gun in use....the assertion that somehow a musket is any less dangerous than an AR-15(i'm sure there are many thousands of dead continental soldiers that would argue with that assessment), and is what people should be using, simply because that was state of the art in 1791, is laughable....perhaps we should ban cars, and go back to horses, because that was state of the art when our right to travel/freedom of movement was established in 1781, or perhaps we should ban television, because newspapers and books were state of the art at the time....discriminating against advances in technology, simply because you don't like them, is..well, it's just plain dumb...technological advancement is part of the evolution of society..

furthermore, what you consider "excessive", someone else might consider as either "enough", or "not enough"....maybe he's collecting them, or maybe he customizes them as a hobby, or maybe he enjoys shooting, or just bought some of them because they looked cool....show me where it doesn't cover those things...

would you restrict theoretical steve's ability to purchase what you consider to be an excess amount of fried chicken, or cars, or hammers, or whatever else?

you have an obvious bias, dislike, and perhaps even fear of guns....it is irrational, and unwarranted, and causes your arguments to be completely bereft of logic...

It gives Steve the right to grab a musket and defend "Kentucky" (random state) from the enemy

as explained above....this is incorrect...this is what happens when people with a bias, or deficient language comprehension skills, decide the constitution needs to be "interpreted"

Idiosonic
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog

 

I think making it harder for anyone to own guns. Not crazy hard but not childs play. Also a cap on the amount of ammo one magazine can hold, you don't need 100 round clips. And the amount of guns one can own (collectors licenses issued to collectors permitting more guns owned) you don't need 50 guns. And atleast make people keep it in a safe or locked place, leaving it lying around for a kid to grab is idiotic

Something needs to change, yet no one wants to make it as the NRA and gun nuts will villainize them and run them out of town. "there tryin to take ma guns!!"


Edit" Dr - Patient confidentiality needs to be thrown out of the window when purchasing a gun. That is all upto the judgement of a doctor.

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

how very draconian, and authoritarian of you.....you would force your personal opinions and beliefs on people, and make them live by them..

i'm glad you're not in charge...