The mass shooting today.

ml1 said:

he was in Houston, not El Paso. How do you reckon he got to the border or on to an airplane before the alert went out to border crossings and airport security?

there are lots of crossings that people use without even seeing a border patrol. I’m not kidding you. I know. People go back and forth. 

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Apparently, the FBI initially released the wrong photo (initially described photo as being of the shooter). Instead, the person  initially pictured as the "suspect/shooter" claims that he is instead an innocent, commercial truck driver. And, the initial photo circulated was of the truck driver, Francisco Opreza, rather than the alleged shooter now identified as Francisco Opresa. I am looking for an FBI press release on this issue. Clearly, correct identification of the alleged shooter is crucial.

PS I feel bad for the truck driver who was initially misidentified as the shooter.

clearly the correct identification is of vital importance in arresting the right person.

It's not particularly relevant however to the larger question as to whether or not civilians should have a right to own such powerful weapons. A question that you don't need any more information on the Cleveland shooting in order to express your thoughts. 

If you think people should have a right to own such firearms, why not just go ahead and admit it? Why go round and round about getting all the relevant information on this one shooting in TX?

I am interested in how the shooter obtained the firearm.  I am awaiting the official facts (especially on this issue). New issue: did incorrect initial photo and identification of shooter allow shooter to escape.  Thanks for your patience.

RealityForAll said:

I am interested in how the shooter obtained the firearm.  I am awaiting the official facts (especially on this issue). New issue: did incorrect initial photo and identification of shooter allow shooter to escape.  Thanks for your patience.

Maybe he got it when he opened his bank account.  When I lived in Denton, there was a bank that was running that promotion.  Those were handguns though, as I recall.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Apparently, the FBI initially released the wrong photo (initially described photo as being of the shooter). Instead, the person  initially pictured as the "suspect/shooter" claims that he is instead an innocent, commercial truck driver. And, the initial photo circulated was of the truck driver, Francisco Opreza, rather than the alleged shooter now identified as Francisco Opresa. I am looking for an FBI press release on this issue. Clearly, correct identification of the alleged shooter is crucial.

PS I feel bad for the truck driver who was initially misidentified as the shooter.

clearly the correct identification is of vital importance in arresting the right person.

It's not particularly relevant however to the larger question as to whether or not civilians should have a right to own such powerful weapons. A question that you don't need any more information on the Cleveland shooting in order to express your thoughts. 

If you think people should have a right to own such firearms, why not just go ahead and admit it? Why go round and round about getting all the relevant information on this one shooting in TX?

I am interested in how the shooter obtained the firearm.  I am awaiting the official facts (especially on this issue). New issue: did incorrect initial photo and identification of shooter allow shooter to escape.  Thanks for your patience.

how he obtained isn't particularly relevant to the question either. If the weapons weren't manufactured for a civilian market it wouldn't be available for purchase either legally or illegally. Or alternatively, it couldn't have been stolen from a previous legal owner.

but thanks for your obfuscation.

Jaytee said:

there are lots of crossings that people use without even seeing a border patrol. I’m not kidding you. I know. People go back and forth. 

still, Cleveland, TX is a long way from the border. It's probably an eight hour drive, and it takes more than one tank of gas.

RealityForAll said:

tjohn said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

A man using an AR-15-style weapon shot and killed five people Friday, including an 8-year-old — an angry response to the neighbors’ request that he stop shooting in his yard while their baby was trying to sleep, Texas authorities said Saturday. The gunman then fled, prompting an ongoing manhunt.

Authorities charged Francisco Oropeza, 38, with five counts of murder and were searching for him Saturday morning, San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told The Washington Post. Authorities believed he was about two miles from the area and were working to apprehend him, he said.

Ten people, all family members, were in the Cleveland, Tex., home during the shooting. Three women, a man and an 8-year-old boy were killed, Capers said. Five others survived, including three children.

The suspect was the victims’ neighbor and went to their home Friday night after they asked him to stop shooting an AR-15-style weapon in his front yard because of the noise, Capers said.

Oropeza frequently shot the gun in his yard, Capers said, and allegedly became angry when the neighbors said their baby was trying to sleep around or after 11 p.m. Authorities saw video footage of Oropeza walking up to the victims’ front door before going inside.

“The neighbors walked over and said … ‘Hey man, can you not do that, we’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep’ or whatever,” Capers said. “They went back in their house and then we have a video of him walking up their driveway with his AR-15.”

Here's another stupid, tragic, horrifying American story:

Gunman killed neighbors, child with AR-15-style rifle, sheriff says (WaPo -- gift link for those worried about paywalls)

A man using an AR-15-style weapon shot and killed five people Friday, including an 8-year-old — an angry response to the neighbors’ request that he stop shooting in his yard while their baby was trying to sleep, Texas authorities said Saturday. The gunman then fled, prompting an ongoing manhunt.

Authorities charged Francisco Oropeza, 38, with five counts of murder and were searching for him Saturday morning, San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told The Washington Post. Authorities believed he was about two miles from the area and were working to apprehend him, he said.

Ten people, all family members, were in the Cleveland, Tex., home during the shooting. Three women, a man and an 8-year-old boy were killed, Capers said. Five others survived, including three children.

The suspect was the victims’ neighbor and went to their home Friday night after they asked him to stop shooting an AR-15-style weapon in his front yard because of the noise, Capers said.

Oropeza frequently shot the gun in his yard, Capers said, and allegedly became angry when the neighbors said their baby was trying to sleep around or after 11 p.m. Authorities saw video footage of Oropeza walking up to the victims’ front door before going inside.

“The neighbors walked over and said … ‘Hey man, can you not do that, we’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep’ or whatever,” Capers said. “They went back in their house and then we have a video of him walking up their driveway with his AR-15.”

Click to Read More

A man using an AR-15-style weapon shot and killed five people Friday, including an 8-year-old — an angry response to the neighbors’ request that he stop shooting in his yard while their baby was trying to sleep, Texas authorities said Saturday. The gunman then fled, prompting an ongoing manhunt.

Authorities charged Francisco Oropeza, 38, with five counts of murder and were searching for him Saturday morning, San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told The Washington Post. Authorities believed he was about two miles from the area and were working to apprehend him, he said.

Ten people, all family members, were in the Cleveland, Tex., home during the shooting. Three women, a man and an 8-year-old boy were killed, Capers said. Five others survived, including three children.

The suspect was the victims’ neighbor and went to their home Friday night after they asked him to stop shooting an AR-15-style weapon in his front yard because of the noise, Capers said.

Oropeza frequently shot the gun in his yard, Capers said, and allegedly became angry when the neighbors said their baby was trying to sleep around or after 11 p.m. Authorities saw video footage of Oropeza walking up to the victims’ front door before going inside.

“The neighbors walked over and said … ‘Hey man, can you not do that, we’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep’ or whatever,” Capers said. “They went back in their house and then we have a video of him walking up their driveway with his AR-15.”

It seems clear to me that this man should never have had a gun in the first place. I'm curious, though, what someone like RFA thinks -- how could a situation like this have been prevented? Are such incidents simply the price we pay for the right to bear arms, or are there laws and regulations we all -- gun owners or not -- could agree on that would make stupid tragedies like this less likely? Maybe AR-15s should be illegal? There's quite a difference between the gun and its use in this story and a a shotgun with a three shot limit kept for self-defense. Maybe the bar for owning a gun needs to be higher so that fewer people can own one, and certain behaviors should result in losing one's firearms? Or something else? Or is there nothing to be done -- the second amendment blindfolding our eyes to any solutions and binding our hands from any action?

I think the shooter, Francisco Oropeza (allegedly), needs to be

arrested, his motive (or lack of motive) ascertained

and the circumstances surrounding his acquisition

of the firearm needs to be documented.  The wait is very

unsatisfying but we need the facts before recommendations 

can be thoughtfully made.

So, are you saying that we should treat gun violence as a public health crisis and meticulously research causes and solutions and then take meaningful steps to reduce gun violence?

Research indicates that certain psychiatric drugs can cause people to become psychotic, aggressive, suicidal (and even homicidal). These are proven drug reactions, not symptoms of a mental illness.  I am skeptical that further research into the link between psychiatric drugs and violence can be accomplished accurately and effectively without first blunting the power of big Pharma. 

Link:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471985/

Yes, I think you're right that drug regulation is another analogy we could add to the air travel, car travel, and food safety ones I made. And, if I'm reading you correctly, you're pointing out that part of the difficulty here is regulatory capture. We do, after all, have institutions and organizations in place that could play a more active role in addressing our epidemic of gun violence -- the CDC could be doing a lot more (it used to actually be prohibited from researching gun violence!). Federal and local law enforcement could be more diligent in enforcing the gun laws that do exist. But, as you seem to be suggesting with your Big Pharma analogy, regulatory capture -- the gun lobby -- stymies this. It even has the ear of the Supreme Court.

Regulatory capture is always a difficult challenge. Perhaps the most successful challenge to it I can think of is the dramatic change we've seen in attitudes and regulations around tobacco. Do you think treating guns as a public health crisis, the way tobacco has been, could be a way forward? Public campaigns encouraging responsible gun usage and shaming of dangerous and irresponsible usage? Perhaps putting the focus there first, rather than on direct regulation, could end up reaping more dividends by catalyzing a change in social attitudes?

Not a mass shooting but why the fudge does a fan need a gun to watch basketball????
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-02/texas-college-baseball-player-accidentally-shot-during-game/102290342

Ok, an argument somewhat nearby, and one shooter missed. But still………

PVW said:

RealityForAll said:

tjohn said:

RealityForAll said:

PVW said:

A man using an AR-15-style weapon shot and killed five people Friday, including an 8-year-old — an angry response to the neighbors’ request that he stop shooting in his yard while their baby was trying to sleep, Texas authorities said Saturday. The gunman then fled, prompting an ongoing manhunt.

Authorities charged Francisco Oropeza, 38, with five counts of murder and were searching for him Saturday morning, San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told The Washington Post. Authorities believed he was about two miles from the area and were working to apprehend him, he said.

Ten people, all family members, were in the Cleveland, Tex., home during the shooting. Three women, a man and an 8-year-old boy were killed, Capers said. Five others survived, including three children.

The suspect was the victims’ neighbor and went to their home Friday night after they asked him to stop shooting an AR-15-style weapon in his front yard because of the noise, Capers said.

Oropeza frequently shot the gun in his yard, Capers said, and allegedly became angry when the neighbors said their baby was trying to sleep around or after 11 p.m. Authorities saw video footage of Oropeza walking up to the victims’ front door before going inside.

“The neighbors walked over and said … ‘Hey man, can you not do that, we’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep’ or whatever,” Capers said. “They went back in their house and then we have a video of him walking up their driveway with his AR-15.”

Here's another stupid, tragic, horrifying American story:

Gunman killed neighbors, child with AR-15-style rifle, sheriff says (WaPo -- gift link for those worried about paywalls)

A man using an AR-15-style weapon shot and killed five people Friday, including an 8-year-old — an angry response to the neighbors’ request that he stop shooting in his yard while their baby was trying to sleep, Texas authorities said Saturday. The gunman then fled, prompting an ongoing manhunt.

Authorities charged Francisco Oropeza, 38, with five counts of murder and were searching for him Saturday morning, San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told The Washington Post. Authorities believed he was about two miles from the area and were working to apprehend him, he said.

Ten people, all family members, were in the Cleveland, Tex., home during the shooting. Three women, a man and an 8-year-old boy were killed, Capers said. Five others survived, including three children.

The suspect was the victims’ neighbor and went to their home Friday night after they asked him to stop shooting an AR-15-style weapon in his front yard because of the noise, Capers said.

Oropeza frequently shot the gun in his yard, Capers said, and allegedly became angry when the neighbors said their baby was trying to sleep around or after 11 p.m. Authorities saw video footage of Oropeza walking up to the victims’ front door before going inside.

“The neighbors walked over and said … ‘Hey man, can you not do that, we’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep’ or whatever,” Capers said. “They went back in their house and then we have a video of him walking up their driveway with his AR-15.”

Click to Read More

A man using an AR-15-style weapon shot and killed five people Friday, including an 8-year-old — an angry response to the neighbors’ request that he stop shooting in his yard while their baby was trying to sleep, Texas authorities said Saturday. The gunman then fled, prompting an ongoing manhunt.

Authorities charged Francisco Oropeza, 38, with five counts of murder and were searching for him Saturday morning, San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers told The Washington Post. Authorities believed he was about two miles from the area and were working to apprehend him, he said.

Ten people, all family members, were in the Cleveland, Tex., home during the shooting. Three women, a man and an 8-year-old boy were killed, Capers said. Five others survived, including three children.

The suspect was the victims’ neighbor and went to their home Friday night after they asked him to stop shooting an AR-15-style weapon in his front yard because of the noise, Capers said.

Oropeza frequently shot the gun in his yard, Capers said, and allegedly became angry when the neighbors said their baby was trying to sleep around or after 11 p.m. Authorities saw video footage of Oropeza walking up to the victims’ front door before going inside.

“The neighbors walked over and said … ‘Hey man, can you not do that, we’ve got an infant in here trying to sleep’ or whatever,” Capers said. “They went back in their house and then we have a video of him walking up their driveway with his AR-15.”

It seems clear to me that this man should never have had a gun in the first place. I'm curious, though, what someone like RFA thinks -- how could a situation like this have been prevented? Are such incidents simply the price we pay for the right to bear arms, or are there laws and regulations we all -- gun owners or not -- could agree on that would make stupid tragedies like this less likely? Maybe AR-15s should be illegal? There's quite a difference between the gun and its use in this story and a a shotgun with a three shot limit kept for self-defense. Maybe the bar for owning a gun needs to be higher so that fewer people can own one, and certain behaviors should result in losing one's firearms? Or something else? Or is there nothing to be done -- the second amendment blindfolding our eyes to any solutions and binding our hands from any action?

I think the shooter, Francisco Oropeza (allegedly), needs to be

arrested, his motive (or lack of motive) ascertained

and the circumstances surrounding his acquisition

of the firearm needs to be documented.  The wait is very

unsatisfying but we need the facts before recommendations 

can be thoughtfully made.

So, are you saying that we should treat gun violence as a public health crisis and meticulously research causes and solutions and then take meaningful steps to reduce gun violence?

Research indicates that certain psychiatric drugs can cause people to become psychotic, aggressive, suicidal (and even homicidal). These are proven drug reactions, not symptoms of a mental illness.  I am skeptical that further research into the link between psychiatric drugs and violence can be accomplished accurately and effectively without first blunting the power of big Pharma. 

Link:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471985/

Yes, I think you're right that drug regulation is another analogy we could add to the air travel, car travel, and food safety ones I made. And, if I'm reading you correctly, you're pointing out that part of the difficulty here is regulatory capture. We do, after all, have institutions and organizations in place that could play a more active role in addressing our epidemic of gun violence -- the CDC could be doing a lot more (it used to actually be prohibited from researching gun violence!). Federal and local law enforcement could be more diligent in enforcing the gun laws that do exist. But, as you seem to be suggesting with your Big Pharma analogy, regulatory capture -- the gun lobby -- stymies this. It even has the ear of the Supreme Court.

Regulatory capture is always a difficult challenge. Perhaps the most successful challenge to it I can think of is the dramatic change we've seen in attitudes and regulations around tobacco. Do you think treating guns as a public health crisis, the way tobacco has been, could be a way forward? Public campaigns encouraging responsible gun usage and shaming of dangerous and irresponsible usage? Perhaps putting the focus there first, rather than on direct regulation, could end up reaping more dividends by catalyzing a change in social attitudes?

Excellent points raised.  I am on the road today.  Thus, it is unlikely that I will be able to respond until this evening (or perhaps tomorrow morning).  Thanks for your patience.

Didn't get far after all.

"Francisco Oropesa, 38, was captured without incident near Houston and about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from his home in the rural town of Cleveland."

Cleveland Shooting: Man Accused of Killing 5 Neighbors in Texas Is Arrested After Manhunt – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth (nbcdfw.com)

Good news: the alleged Cleveland TX shooter has been arrested.  No word on how the alleged shooter obtained the firearm.  Media appears to be focused instead on shooter's history of deportation.  Shooter's marriage MAY have cured his prior immigration issues.  I am sure this issue will be revealed eventually (along with firearm acquisition details).

The toxicology report of the Nashville Covenant School shooter, Audrey Hale, still has not been released despite repeated demands for the toxicology results.  See pic.

Link: 

https://www.offthepress.com/nashville-police-refuse-to-release-school-shooters-toxicology-report/

RealityForAll said:

Good news: the alleged Cleveland TX shooter has been arrested.  No word on how the alleged shooter obtained the firearm.  Media appears to be focused instead on shooter's history of deportation.  Shooter's marriage MAY have cured his prior immigration issues.  I am sure this issue will be revealed eventually (along with firearm acquisition details).

I'm not getting your interest in whether that rifle was obtained legally or not. How is that relevant to the question of whether such high powered weapons should be in the hands of civilians?

at some point the weapon would have been purchased legally by someone, even if the shooter subsequently obtained it through illegal means. Unless maybe you believe the firearms manufacturers or gun dealers are themselves running a black market for such weapons?

Was the toxicology report for the guy who shot Gabby Giffords ever released?  If so, how long after the shooting?

I think you are seeing conspiracies in regular procedure.  Maybe be a little bit more careful when you are cleaning your firearms.  Lead poisoning can lead to dementia.

GoSlugs said:

Was the toxicology report for the guy who shot Gabby Giffords ever released?  If so, how long after the shooting?

I think you are seeing conspiracies in regular procedure.  Maybe be a little bit more careful when you are cleaning your firearms.  Lead poisoning can lead to dementia.

Not seeing conspiracy theories at all.  Toxicology report for Audrey Hale has been repeatedly requested.  But request has been denied.  Why?

Nice attempt at changing the focus with your smears.

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

isn’t it always about blaming the medicine or the vaccine or the mental health or the demographic or whether said shooters have a green card in their wallets? But a 50 caliber firearm hanging over the tv is something to be proud of…

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

How would you evaluate the "firepower" of a firearm?

I would instead frame the discussion as:  what failure(s) caused, or contributed, to shooter's behavior?

I don't understand where RFA is going with all this. There have been many, many, many gun tragedies already, surely enough to draw conclusions and make proposals for how to make there be fewer in the future, and for them to be less deadly.  What is a toxicology test from this particular incident going to tell us that is missing from the realms of already existing information we already have?

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

How would you evaluate the "firepower" of a firearm?

I would instead frame the discussion as:  what failure(s) caused, or contributed, to shooter's behavior?

"Firepower" would be the amount of destructive capacity. The availability of a weapon with greater destructive capacity contributes to the shooter's ability to kill people.

RealityForAll said:

GoSlugs said:

Was the toxicology report for the guy who shot Gabby Giffords ever released?  If so, how long after the shooting?

I think you are seeing conspiracies in regular procedure.  Maybe be a little bit more careful when you are cleaning your firearms.  Lead poisoning can lead to dementia.

Not seeing conspiracy theories at all.  Toxicology report for Audrey Hale has been repeatedly requested.  But request has been denied.  Why?

There was a reason given.  If you disagree with the reason, you could discuss that.

Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

isn’t it always about blaming the medicine or the vaccine or the mental health or the demographic or whether said shooters have a green card in their wallets? But a 50 caliber firearm hanging over the tv is something to be proud of…

I have not blamed anyone.  Instead, I have been asking that we wait for the facts surrounding the Cleveland TX shooting be ascertained before we assess what happened.

Seperately, I have asked for the toxicology report for the Nashville Covenant School shooter.  My focus on this issue was prompted by the fact that MNPD has refused the request.  If the toxicology report showed no pharma, or foreign substances, I doubt that MNPD would deny release of the toxicology report.  Which begs the question:  what substances/pharma are reported in Audrey Hale's toxicology report?

My understanding is that foreign nationals are NOT permitted to purchase firearms absent a green-card.  Is your understanding the same on this issue?

PS A toxicology report for the Cleveland TX shooter would also be helpful.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

How would you evaluate the "firepower" of a firearm?

I would instead frame the discussion as:  what failure(s) caused, or contributed, to shooter's behavior?

a weapon that can fire large caliber ammunition at a rate of roughly one round per second is to me a lot of firepower. 

PVW said:

I don't understand where RFA is going with all this. There have been many, many, many gun tragedies already, surely enough to draw conclusions and make proposals for how to make there be fewer in the future, and for them to be less deadly.  What is a toxicology test from this particular incident going to tell us that is missing from the realms of already existing information we already have?

it's an obvious diversion from answering simple questions about the widespread availability of firearms.

RealityForAll said:

Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

isn’t it always about blaming the medicine or the vaccine or the mental health or the demographic or whether said shooters have a green card in their wallets? But a 50 caliber firearm hanging over the tv is something to be proud of…

I have not blamed anyone.  Instead, I have been asking that we wait for the facts surrounding the Cleveland TX shooting be ascertained before we assess what happened.

Seperately, I have asked for the toxicology report for the Nashville Covenant School shooter.  My focus on this issue was prompted by the fact that MNPD has refused the request.  If the toxicology report showed no pharma, or foreign substances, I doubt that MNPD would deny release of the toxicology report.  Which begs the question:  what substances/pharma are reported in Audrey Hale's toxicology report?

My understanding is that foreign nationals are NOT permitted to purchase firearms absent a green-card.  Is your understanding the same on this issue?

PS A toxicology report for the Cleveland TX shooter would also be helpful.

hypothetically, what difference would it make if Hale had been under the influence of large quantities of several substances to the question of whether a civilian should have an AR-15 type firearm as the police reported Hale possessed?

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

How would you evaluate the "firepower" of a firearm?

I would instead frame the discussion as:  what failure(s) caused, or contributed, to shooter's behavior?

a weapon that can fire large caliber ammunition at a rate of roughly one round per second is to me a lot of firepower. 

Thanks for the honest, substantive answer.  Your definition (set forth above) would likely eliminate ALL semi-automatic firearms.  Additionally, pump and bolt firearms could also be banned (for example, using a "slow shooter" would provide a different result than using an "average shooter.").

It is difficult to imagine such a limitation being successful for a variety of reasons.  Why do you want to focus on the firearm rather than the alleged shooters?

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

a weapon that can fire large caliber ammunition at a rate of roughly one round per second is to me a lot of firepower. 

Thanks for the honest, substantive answer.  Your definition (set forth above) would likely eliminate ALL semi-automatic firearms.  Additionally, pump and bolt firearms could also be banned (for example, using a "slow shooter" would provide a different result than using an "average shooter.").

Conservatively speaking, a semi-automatic AR-15 can fire 45 rounds per minute, which is "roughly" one round per second (technically 3 rounds in 4 seconds instead of 4 rounds in 4 seconds, but close enough for killing people).

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

Jaytee said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

isn’t it always about blaming the medicine or the vaccine or the mental health or the demographic or whether said shooters have a green card in their wallets? But a 50 caliber firearm hanging over the tv is something to be proud of…

I have not blamed anyone.  Instead, I have been asking that we wait for the facts surrounding the Cleveland TX shooting be ascertained before we assess what happened.

Seperately, I have asked for the toxicology report for the Nashville Covenant School shooter.  My focus on this issue was prompted by the fact that MNPD has refused the request.  If the toxicology report showed no pharma, or foreign substances, I doubt that MNPD would deny release of the toxicology report.  Which begs the question:  what substances/pharma are reported in Audrey Hale's toxicology report?

My understanding is that foreign nationals are NOT permitted to purchase firearms absent a green-card.  Is your understanding the same on this issue?

PS A toxicology report for the Cleveland TX shooter would also be helpful.

hypothetically, what difference would it make if Hale had been under the influence of large quantities of several substances to the question of whether a civilian should have an AR-15 type firearm as the police reported Hale possessed?

Our criminal law generally focuses on intention coalescing with action.  Some substances/pharma have side effects, including but not limited to: rage, suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, psychosis, etc.   A person experiencing non-genuine experiences as a result of prescribed pharma (or other substances) may react tragically.  I am just trying to connect the dots.  Let me know your thoughts.

RealityForAll said:

Our criminal law generally focuses on intention coalescing with action.  Some substances/pharma have side effects, including but not limited to: rage, suicidal thoughts, hallucinations, psychosis, etc.   A person experiencing non-genuine experiences as a result of prescribed pharma may react tragically.  I am just trying to connect the dots.  Let me know your thoughts.

Access to an AR-15 compounds the tragic circumstances.

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

I also don't get the relevance of what substances Hale may have been taking to the question of whether a person should be able to possess weapons of such tremendous firepower.

How would you evaluate the "firepower" of a firearm?

I would instead frame the discussion as:  what failure(s) caused, or contributed, to shooter's behavior?

a weapon that can fire large caliber ammunition at a rate of roughly one round per second is to me a lot of firepower. 

Thanks for the honest, substantive answer.  Your definition (set forth above) would likely eliminate ALL semi-automatic firearms.  Additionally, pump and bolt firearms could also be banned (for example, using a "slow shooter" would provide a different result than using an "average shooter.").

It is difficult to imagine such a limitation being successful for a variety of reasons.  Why do you want to focus on the firearm rather than the alleged shooters?

why is it difficult to imagine?

I'm considering the weapon in this case because I'm wondering if the killers didn't have an AR-15 but entered the premises with a .38 revolver, maybe the body counts wouldn't have been as high.  and I didn't set out a "definition" to be used for legislation. I used an informal guideline for what I personally consider "firepower." In the case of Hale, it was an AR-15 type rifle. Why do civilians need such weapons? It's a pretty simple question to answer.

I give you credit for tenacity though, in your steadfast refusal to answer it.