Author Topic: Mass Shooting Megathread | Rancho Tehama, CA | 5 dead, shooter down  (Read 19378 times)

evidently police are still unaware of how he died? was it the gun wound or the crash that killed him?

he must've crashed into an icewall


Holy forget I almost went to San Antonio this weekend.

They admit he was a dem yet?

he was not dishonorably discharged. he was discharged for bad conduct for abusing his wife and child, which means that he could still legally own and acquire firearms.
Actually, wait
Isn't a history of domestic abuse supposed to disqualify you from being able to legally own firearms?

Actually, wait
Isn't a history of domestic abuse supposed to disqualify you from being able to legally own firearms?

I would loving imagine



this guy can go forget himself with a cactus




bravo ha ha What another Epic Win for atheism :)) Tips Pinstripe Fedora

bravo ha ha What another Epic Win for atheism :)) Tips Pinstripe Fedora
*tips le star trek fedora* Bazinga!

« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 12:46:42 PM by Tactical Nuke »


I would loving imagine
I looked it up and yes. The Gun Control Act of 1968 bars anyone who (among other criteria) "has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

So my first point all stand. The shooter could not legally own this firearm, which is evidence against the claim the simply banning weapons will solve the problem. His weapon was already illegal.



Additionally, I took another look at the source that Gojira posted, and it does in fact say "It’s part of a disturbing picture emerging of the 26-year-old, who was discharged under dishonorable circumstances from the Air Force in 2014, according to Defense Department records."

I don't recall seeing this quote when I looked last night, it most have been added in I suppose?

I'm seeing a lot of talk about people wanting to ban AR-15s specifically, which makes me curious:
So, my question to those who are pro-gun control: Without looking anything up, based just off of what you know right now, what is it about this one model in specific that leads to so much discussion about banning this one model in specific
This is my simulated perspective of someone who has no to little knowledge of firearms and wants to ban the AR-15. As to why they would just want to ban this specific model, my assumption is that they only think that an AR-15 is effective enough for mass shootings. Somehow it's managed to yank the rug out from underneath the AK platform, which has been the scary gun for years.

A: It looks like the militaries M-16 with heavy ties to war

B: AR-15 is easily assumed to mean "Assault Rifle 15" when in reality its "Armalite Rifle"

C: It's black, lots of guns have a black finish and the bad guys in hollywood use these to try and kill the heroes

D: It's magazine carries more than 10 rounds in general which means more bullets to kill peeple

E: Conservative gun owners love to use and customize it and Conservatives tend to be Republican. We don't like those darn republicans having fun (despite the fact that there are plenty of left gun owners who love it as well, this must be disregarded however since political demographics have to be solid red or solid blue depending on your state media.)

F: It's semi-automatic, for which a person who doesn't know anything about the term would just assume full-auto more often than not. This makes it more scary since fully automatic weapons are supposed to be banned :((