Jump to content

Odessa - Active Shooter


Neonmoon

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:
36 minutes ago, Fozzz said:
How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

Sling shot

You think if they ban guns today they won't target sling shots tomorrow?  Not very bright are ya.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lobo said:

Police last month: "Well, can you describe the man that threatened you and where he lives?"
Neighbor:  "White male, in his 30's.  He's out here in the country near us...here's the location."

Police last month: "We can't find it on our GPS.  Call us back if something else happens."

Neighbor: "Did I say White?  I mean possibly Black."  (sirens whaling before sentence is finished) 

Clearly these heroes just wanted to make it home. Besides, donuts were on sale that day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2019 at 11:37 PM, Ten Bears said:
On 8/31/2019 at 4:35 PM, workswithseed said:
Don't you hate when people go postal?

Don't you hate it when people trivialize mass murder?

Fucking this. The shooter abandoned his original vehicle, shot a female postal deliver person in the head—killing her, then continued his rampage in her postal vehicle. She laid in the middle of the fucking street for hours because no law enforcement was available to process it. I realize this is Surly but fuck you you pencil dicked little internet tough guy bitch. 

I hope this never happens to you or anyone close you. I get the Odessa hate, but nobody was going around chasing this guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Iceman said:

How many mass shootings have  been done by people abiding by the law?

 

The problem is PEOPLE.  Not guns.  Wake up...

6 negs on this post, But no viable replies to what I asked. So typical of the pussies on here that have no answers except to look to the government for solutions. Alleged solutions at that

 

The government must control us goddamnit!!!  If you disagree, you enable mass shootings. Am I right? 

Edited by Iceman
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

6 negs on this post, But no viable replies to what I asked. So typical of the pussies on here that have no answers except to look to the government for solutions. Alleged solutions at that

 

You're getting negged because this is the wrong forum for that discussion, you stupid chucklefuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4HE said:

Fucking this. The shooter abandoned his original vehicle, shot a female postal deliver person in the head—killing her, then continued his rampage in her postal vehicle. She laid in the middle of the fucking street for hours because no law enforcement was available to process it. I realize this is Surly but fuck you you pencil dicked little internet tough guy bitch. 

I hope this never happens to you or anyone close you. I get the Odessa hate, but nobody was going around chasing this guy. 

I made a joke, I never said I was tough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Iceman said:

Because my ownership of firearms should never be the target of proposed legislation.  It s a threat to nobody.

Unless I demonstrate something we all agree is worthy of deeming me unfit for my ownership, i.e mental fitness, felonies, etc., then leave me the fuck alone.

 

4 hours ago, Iceman said:

I absolutely support legislation against crimes committed with guns. 100% on board. 

Possession, however, is not a crime in my opinion,  unless the individual has already demonstrated being unfit to possess that firearm.

Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Lolz. "wasn't around in '94."

and it won't make you a bit safer.  but you can hug that legislation at night.

You seemed to act like gun control legislation is a foreign concept that will never affect you, when in fact we've had such legislation in our lifetimes, and it stood up to legal challenge after legal challenge.

It's not about making me safer - some asshole fucking around on his cellphone and blowing through a stop sign or red light is more dangerous to me than a mass shooter, because I see those idiots every single week.  But there's a shitload of people in this country who are starting to reach their limits with these shootings, and they are getting tired of politicians doing jack shit.  

Every time you get one of these shootings, you add more and more people to the list of those who want something done.

It's about people like you, and organizations like the NRA saying "let's compromise a little, let's push through some solid national red-flag legislation and stricter/improved background checks, maybe increase the mental health resources."

But far too many people like you and organizations like the NRA won't budge a single fucking inch, because you think that if you budge an inch, they'll take a mile.

Guess what?  If nothing is done, and things continue the way they are, you're going to be wishing you had budged an inch or two, because they are going to take their fucking mile or two, and I guarantee that we are going to get AWB 2.0, and it's going to make people like you howl.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

Serious question: what is a "stricter" background check? Right now they require a full FBI check against any criminal or other restrictions for purchasing a firearm

Edited by immortal13
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing Iceman - solid red-flag legislation and better/stricter background checks would have prevented 2 out of the last 3 high-profile mass shootings - the Odessa guy should have lost his gun after threatening that woman over her trash or whatever.  The Dayton shooter would have been prevented from buying anything, based on the fact that he had some serious mental health issues in high school (and yeah, those records should have carried on past high school).

And Hell, the El Paso shooter's mom expressed some concerns to the local cops over his purchases/habits, and they blew her off.  Solid red-flag legislation might have seen somebody taking a peek at that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

He's also the only one calling people pussies.  Message and delivery are both off.  

message is spot on.

 

people uncomfortable with the truth.

 

That is at the root of the problem.

 

"we want our side heard.  Your side needs to shut the hell up.  We know best.  Fuck the Constitution.  We need some over-reactive legislation to make us feel safe."

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

Edited by Iceman
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Serious question: what is a "stricter" background check? Right now they require a full FBI check against any criminal or other restrictions for purchasing a firearm

When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

And it will not affect mass shootings, just like the first one didn’t. The 1994 AWB was deemed a failure in retrospect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

You listed "red flag laws" separately, so again I will ask what does a "stricter" background check mean? Do you know what the current restrictions are for purchasing a firearm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

Agree with that, but by god make certain that due process is strictly adhered to and thoroughly investigated when putting the “red flag” laws in action. Just relying on a complaint from someone with an agenda (scorned woman, asshole neighbor, etc.) is a very dangerous constitutional step and ripe for abuse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thestud said:

Some of the above instances you list were failures on behalf of the government. If the government had done what it was supposed those people wouldn't have been eligible to purchase or possess firearms.  And you want to entrust that same government with the ability to confiscate firearms from civilians without due process? 

This is a huge question. Remember what happened in New Orleans after Katrina? That was a clusterfuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iceman, a lot of us get it. The mental exercise and analogies make sense that restricting guns won't change the outcomes. However in reality there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that restrictions and checks will in fact cut down on these mass murders. The proof is in the society of every other country on this planet. It doesn't make sense to me either but here we are.

I value my handguns, my ARs and my shotguns. Liberty is absolutely a top concern of mine. But something has to be changed as it is blatantly obvious we are failing. Even a little bit of compromise will save lives. I think we can get there without dying on crosses.

Also, fuck the NRA. They are not the group I became a member of a long time ago.

  • Like 4
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Walser said:

Iceman, a lot of us get it. The mental exercise and analogies make sense that restricting guns won't change the outcomes. However in reality there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that restrictions and checks will in fact cut down on these mass murders. The proof is in the society of every other country on this planet. It doesn't make sense to me either but here we are.

I value my handguns, my ARs and my shotguns. Liberty is absolutely a top concern of mine. But something has to be changed as it is blatantly obvious we are failing. Even a little bit of compromise will save lives. I think we can get there without dying on crosses.

Also, fuck the NRA. They are not the group I became a member of a long time ago.

Well I guess there needs to be discussion on exactly what the new disqualifications should be. The criminal background restrictions have been the same for many years, so I don't really see how that process can be made "stricter" without increasing criminal convictions that would result in a disqualification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Walser said:

Iceman, a lot of us get it. The mental exercise and analogies make sense that restricting guns won't change the outcomes. However in reality there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that restrictions and checks will in fact cut down on these mass murders. The proof is in the society of every other country on this planet. It doesn't make sense to me either but here we are.

I value my handguns, my ARs and my shotguns. Liberty is absolutely a top concern of mine. But something has to be changed as it is blatantly obvious we are failing. Even a little bit of compromise will save lives. I think we can get there without dying on crosses.

Also, fuck the NRA. They are not the group I became a member of a long time ago.

I've never been a member of the NRA.  Probably for many of the same reasons you have not.

 

where is the overwhelming evidence you speak of that restrictions stop mass murders?  links?

Edited by Iceman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Iceman said:

message is spot on.

 

people uncomfortable with the truth.

 

That is at the root of the problem.

 

"we want our side heard.  Your side needs to shut the hell up.  We know best.  Fuck the Constitution.  We need some over-reactive legislation to make us feel safe."

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

Oh look, Swam is back...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I've never been a member of the NRA.  Probably for many of the same reasons you have not.

 

where is the overwhelming evidence you speak of that restrictions stop mass murders?  links?

I don't think this merits a response. 

Dammit!

 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

And it will not affect mass shootings, just like the first one didn’t. The 1994 AWB was deemed a failure in retrospect.

Doesn't stop the fact that we are headed towards another one - the first one was passed before mass shootings were truly a thing.  The only questions are when and how restrictive it will be, and what, if any, loopholes will there be.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Iceman said:

 

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

You puss negged somebody in the vaping thread for saying they stuck to flower

Every accusation is a confession

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cmontexas said:

You puss negged somebody in the vaping thread for saying they stuck to flower

Every accusation is a confession

They negged first. I do not. I simply replied in the fashion they chose.

 

If they want a conversation, I'm game...

 

but they do not.

Edited by Iceman
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Iceman said:

message is spot on.

 

people uncomfortable with the truth.

 

That is at the root of the problem.

 

"we want our side heard.  Your side needs to shut the hell up.  We know best.  Fuck the Constitution.  We need some over-reactive legislation to make us feel safe."

 

and yes, if you neg without actually posting a meaningful reply, you're a fucking pussified cunt bubble.  Sorry to disturb the cabal's echo chamber...  We're not safer yet...

How about I neg you and comment?

Fuck off. Take your bag of hostility over to CR.

We're ready for it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lol for real

 

First of all lol crying about rep

 

Second of all lol at having your shitty, dumb post negged, then finding an unrelated post and negging the person back.

Boo fuck8ing hoo.

 

Lolz. You negged and expected no response?>

 

I didn't cry about it.  Y'all did.  same ole bitchassed responses as always.

Differing opinion is such a threat.

 

Still waiting on links to  gun restrictions making law abiding citizens less likely to kill others...  Chicago?  London?

Edited by Iceman
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

You listed "red flag laws" separately, so again I will ask what does a "stricter" background check mean? Do you know what the current restrictions are for purchasing a firearm?

l listed red flag laws separately (although I still think they go hand-in-hand somewhat), because they generally pertain to removing firearms from somebody, and not just preventing ownership.   They are only around in 15 or so states though.

Last time I bought a firearm where I had to go through a background check was several years ago, so things may have tightened up, but stricter in the sense that we are headed towards universal background checks (even if a lot of mass shooters are already going through the background check).  More importantly, stricter in the sense that we need to be thinking in terms of the kinds of things that would kick a red flag law into effect.  Like I said, if somebody is a nutcase in high school, and is on school officials/law enforcement's radar then, we need to carry that over into adulthood.

Way too many of these shooters are of the "yep, in school, we always thought he'd be the one to shoot up the place!" variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

l listed red flag laws separately (although I still think they go hand-in-hand somewhat), because they generally pertain to removing firearms from somebody, and not just preventing ownership.   They are only around in 15 or so states though.

Last time I bought a firearm where I had to go through a background check was several years ago, so things may have tightened up, but stricter in the sense that we are headed towards universal background checks (even if a lot of mass shooters are already going through the background check).  More importantly, stricter in the sense that we need to be thinking in terms of the kinds of things that would kick a red flag law into effect.  Like I said, if somebody is a nutcase in high school, and is on school officials/law enforcement's radar then, we need to carry that over into adulthood.

Way too many of these shooters are of the "yep, in school, we always thought he'd be the one to shoot up the place!" variety.

So who decides who is crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Agree with that, but by god make certain that due process is strictly adhered to and thoroughly investigated when putting the “red flag” laws in action. Just relying on a complaint from someone with an agenda (scorned woman, asshole neighbor, etc.) is a very dangerous constitutional step and ripe for abuse.

Agree completely.  We've got 15 states or so that have them, that we can study, and we are starting to see them in action - they've nailed several people, that when you look at them, and read why their firearms were taken, you're thinking "yep, that was a mass shooting just waiting to happen."

We don't want to go back to the days of "Uncle Ed was just locked up in the asylum, because he thought nobody was looking and he was wearing Aunt Ethel's dresses".

But like I said, if a 17 year-old is perceived as a threat by law enforcement and school officials, maybe we shouldn't let him buy a firearm a few years down the road.  And being married to somebody in education, problems with students are fairly well documented.  It's not like some random person cutting somebody off in traffic and getting reported to the cops.  

The Odessa shooter - had the cops bothered to put in the effort (I don't buy the GPS bullshit one bit) and talk to the guy after he threatened his neighbor over the trash in the dumpster, that might have been enough to take his guns for 60 days or so,   The fact that he didn't have electricity and water, and liked to shoot animals in his yard at night would have probably been enough for a West Texas judge to say "yep, let's keep an eye on him"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, tjhooker said:

I think most are bought legally and background check or waiting period is done depending on the gun. Most these crazies aren't criminals so they pass the checks.  There have been some I can recall either passed the check and shouldn't of due to a screw up or they stole the guns from a relative or friend. 

Yeah,  and also gun show loopholes from the Vegas shooter,  right?

Or do I remember that wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, justhookit said:

Jesus fuck. You assholes have an entire forum with multiple threads to spew your bullshit. You managed to go about 24 hours before trashing this thread, so congrats I guess.

Neggers saving lives, brah...

 

they are fierce.

Edited by Iceman
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...