BREAKING: Active Shooter Thousand Oaks

a reply to: Bhadhidar

So I'm out of the country right now and not up on what's going on, just about to read through the thread, so not sure what the shooter was armed with. That being said, I can take a pair of semi-auto handguns with a few magazines and go through dozens of rounds in couple of minutes. I'm not even that big of a shooting guy, but you should understand that it's not just a rifle thing. Heck I have a pistol caliber carbine that I most likely could do more damage with than an AR or something similar just due to the loads available in the caliber.

So that being said, I'm going to read through the thread and see what happened, possibly more commentary later.

Edit: So I just read some more, yep .45 with an extended mag, sad demonstration of what can happen even with a handgun.

a reply to: Jefferton

Thank you!

I live to serve!

a reply to: narrator
You actually just proved with your post that cars are significantly and exponentially more dangerous than firearms.
A tool, that requires as you said documented training and licensing just to own, and is not specifically designed for defense, is still responsible for more fatalities than firearms.

For you see, this dangerous equipment does not even need the only true weapon that exists to kill, intent.
All weapons that exist in the world are only tools until intent is utilized to direct the tool for violence. My intent can turn everything and anything from toys to peanuts into a weapon .

I could bash your head in with a wall scone, or poison your food with an allergen that I may know could harm you fatally without time sensitive treatment. I could even strap you down, and focus a magnifying glass into your eye until eventually the sun's glorious Ray's burn through into your brain. Kill you with light, a non physical energy! Can you ban light???

If people are killing thousands every year with licensed equipment they trained on without intent, by God it does not get any more dangerous than that.

a reply to: Assassin82

Good for that, there needs to be something and especially the communities coming together. My state's community's want to do that, along with their control control bills.

Washington’s mass shooting prevention task force is composed of representatives across a variety of backgrounds, including educators, school safety advisory committee members, local law enforcement, Washington’s ACLU chapter, Washington State Patrol, and the Office of the Superintendent.

However with the bills, it seems like there's already an issue with these, or at least in the following case(and how many others?):

Timely recommendations This all comes about following news of a mass shooting that killed 12 people in a bar in Thousand Oaks, California. The gunman was an Afghanistan war veteran who was interviewed by police at his home last spring after an episode of agitated behavior that authorities were told could be a result of PTSD.

The hope with the task force and its recommendations is to avoid similar tragedies in Washington, across both public places and school environments.

Wa and Ca both have this type of law:
Landmark California gun seizure law takes effect 1 January but amid concerns

A California gun statute going into effect on 1 January gives the police or family members the option to petition the courts to seize the guns and ammunition of someone they think poses a threat, the first law of its kind in the country.

From the first source to illustrate- The gunman was an Afghanistan war veteran who was interviewed by police at his home last spring after an episode of agitated behavior that authorities were told could be a result of PTSD.

Why was the bill not effectively addressed in his situation then? The worry that the pro gun side had why innocent people being caught up in it for example. I wrote a thread about that before the law(Wa state's version) was voted in. Last night's shooter wasn't addressed properly or apparently but had been a threat, what's going on here?

originally posted by: roadgravel

So we as a PEOPLE have to be the solution to the problem. I’ve mentioned on here before what I’m trying to do to help out society. What are YOU, as an individual, doing to help?

I have no plans, and don't foresee a future plan, to use a firearm against persons anywhere in cold blood.

Society could up the penalties for using guns in crimes but it isn't a cure all. Some of these shooters plan on dying anyway.

That's the real kicker in all this. You can legislate all you want but if someone wants to take out as many people as they can on the way out then criminal penalties don't work. The church is meant to be the great moral compass for humanity but Murder already gets you a trip to hell so can't see what more they can do to stop their followers going postal and people from different religions and none have carried out atrocities.

You guys really have backed yourselves into a corner as far as your firearms go, I for one am glad our laws changed after Dunblane in the UK and we don't have the same problem.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

While all you say is true a gun (knife, baton, stun gun, brass knuckles and nunchucks among lots of others) are designed to cause one level of harm or another. Not everyone, who doesn't have access to firearms, would turn to a knife or even a non-weapon, that takes a whole other mindset (especially something as close and personal as a knife).

Only a complete idiot could possibly think that removing firearms from certain individuals would not make a difference. If it were illegal for someone with mental health issues to obtain a firearms licence, or police were informed and reclaimed weapons when someone was deemed unfit then some ma's shootings would undoubtedly be averted, like your most recent. But for some even that is a step too far.

a reply to: djz3ro

To be fair, I think its impossible to liken our gun control laws here in the UK with those in The States.

Over there gun ownership is engrained in their very fabric, its is part of their collective psyche.
And in addition there are simply that many guns in circulation that the introduction of similar control laws would only increase the illegal trade in guns....even less traceability and control than at present.
It would be a criminals paradise.

Obviously they have problems at present and the current approach simply isn't working.

I certainly can't offer up any sort of qualified proposals or suggestions on how they could approach improving things but I think a genuine honest and open debate free from the hyperbole and highly entrenched viewpoints would be a start.
Part of the problem seems to be a complete unwillingness to compromise and even consider opposing views to those currently held by individuals and vested interests.

The vast majority of us over here are happy with our gun control laws, one of the reasons for this is that gun ownership has never been that common over here and I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people have never even seen a gun let alone shoot one or own one.

As a result gun related crime and deaths are remarkably low.

We do have our own issues though and perhaps we should concentrate on solving them and hope our American friends start the process of solving their problems themselves instead of partaking in the bipartisan politics that seems to be dominating the US at present.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Wayfarer

whats killed more people recently

Heart disease,Cancer but whose counting.

Gun phobes sure aren't.

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Did Cancer enable this young veteran to walk into a country bar and end the lives of 11 civilians and a heroic cop?

Was it Heart Disease that the bullets were fired from in the recent Synagogue shooting?

Gun control phobes sure wish it was.

It would be funny to see them come to these threads and make silly comparisons to defend their inane right to own a tool designed to kill, every time someone uses that tool for its purpose on innocent people, if it weren't so tragic.

It wasn't Heart Disease or Cancer that Thomas Hamilton used to gun down 16 kids and a teacher in a Primary School in Dunblane in March of 1996, it was guns and our government tightened gun ownership laws and made it harder to obtain firearms. Our first ever School Shooting, I believe the world's first, was also our last, so far.

Cancer did kill my Mum however, 17 years ago, but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, you only brought it up to deflect from your precious guns.

And no I don't think confiscating your arms is the answer, not to mention impossible but look how doing nothing is working out for you...

So the government decides to protect everyone by "taking the guns". Some gun owners won't comply and there are random fire fights through the streets. Now random people are killed by stray fire as authorities attempt to protect people by causing gun fights with people.

Should work out fine.

I still just don't understand America. One shooting at a bar gets nationwide 24/7 coverage. All the anti gun people from around the world weigh in their opinions.

72 people shot in Chicago with 13 dead over a weekend and NOTHING.

Can someone explain the difference.

People who have been in the military have been trained to kill. There skills surpass the average person. What do we do about that? This last shooter appears to have been more lethal due to his training. Should civilian training also be ended?

a reply to: jjkenobi

Inner city doesn't compare to some college kids line dancing. Priorities.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I still just don't understand America. One shooting at a bar gets nationwide 24/7 coverage. All the anti gun people from around the world weigh in their opinions.

72 people shot in Chicago with 13 dead over a weekend and NOTHING.

Can someone explain the difference.

Because people don't care about the shootings anywhere at anytime.

The goal is to gain control and power and to reduce the rights and freedoms individuals have.

Shootings?

Meh.

Just a means to an end.

a reply to: shockedonlooker

How do we know if he was brainwashed/triggered into doing this? I'm not saying he was. But it's almost absurd the day after elections at the "Borderline".

There where 6 off duty cops in the club at the time of the shooting.

As per department rules they were unarmed.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I still just don't understand America. One shooting at a bar gets nationwide 24/7 coverage. All the anti gun people from around the world weigh in their opinions.

72 people shot in Chicago with 13 dead over a weekend and NOTHING.

Can someone explain the difference.

Mass shootings tug on peoples emotions more than isolated shootings...

a reply to: djz3ro

At least you admit this is more about emotions than about saving people. That's a start.

TheRedneck

The giant pink elephant in the room needs addressed in regards to the gun control issue.

The pachyderm being mental health. That should be the main focus especially when it comes to mass shooters, they all seem to have a few screws loose. And a therapist. Bet this dude had a therapist as well.

Mental health discussion is not PC. Just keep people talking about how it is too many guns that cause these events.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I still just don't understand America. One shooting at a bar gets nationwide 24/7 coverage. All the anti gun people from around the world weigh in their opinions.

72 people shot in Chicago with 13 dead over a weekend and NOTHING.

Can someone explain the difference.

Politics.


Yep, it's that bad.