Another Shooting, Nashville

[AquamarineSteph]

For those people still interested in the shooting at the Waffle House in Nashville:

The initial bond for the alleged shooter had to be offered per a state law which only allows bond to be waived in very specific cases, of which this was not one. The bond has now been revoked.

The young man who stopped the shooter has not only set up a GoFundMe to help out the victims, but someone else has set up one to fund the hero's young daughter's college education.

The investigation into the shooter and his motives is still ongoing. Whether or not his father will be charged in this case is TBD.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The initial bond for the alleged shooter had to be offered per a state law which only allows bond to be waived in very specific cases, of which this was not one.

Thank you for that information. That makes sense then why it was there in the beginning.

 

[robinb]

For those people still interested in the shooting at the Waffle House in Nashville:

The initial bond for the alleged shooter had to be offered per a state law which only allows bond to be waived in very specific cases, of which this was not one. The bond has now been revoked.

The young man who stopped the shooter has not only set up a GoFundMe to help out the victims, but someone else has set up one to fund the hero's young daughter's college education.

The investigation into the shooter and his motives is still ongoing. Whether or not his father will be charged in this case is TBD.

So they can't waive the bond, but they can revoke it right away? It's odd that a mass murder is not one of those specific cases.

It's sad that the only way people are taken care of in these cases is through a Go Fund Me campaign where Go Fund Me keeps 5%.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

This kid sounds like an agitator at worst or at least terribly insensitive. That school suffered great loss and trauma at the hands of a student with the same type weapon this kid is bragging about learning how to shoot. He has a right to learn to shoot but his posts could very easily be seen as upsetting to a student body still healing.

I know you gun people will object to my opinion but it is clear to me what is wrong in this situation.

Or he has an interest and thought he would post about it online like almost everyone else in the world.

Oh gee. Parkland resource officers just *might* just be a little touchy about students posing with guns on Twitter and Instagram. I won't give the Daily Wire a click, but from what I read elsewhere it was an "asked and answered" situation. They asked, he answered. In any case, young Mr. Kashuv seems to be stepping up to be another activist from my brief google search on him.

If you read the article it was asked by the principal and answered earlier on, then he is called back by the resource officers again later in the day and basically interrogated.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Umm, theirs a lot to dissect right their. You say he’s “fear mongoring” claiming they’re coming for your firearms.
Can you honestly say no one’s saying that?
Oh wait, the poster just before you did, and so are some politicians.

Yes I agree with you that there is fear mongering and he is not the only one saying it and that's what I've been saying on here and why I put this on here. But what he is saying is that they are coming for ALL YOUR FIREARMS AND ALL YOUR RIGHTS. And the people on here "attacking" me saying I have "extreme views" by my saying that people are saying that, that no one is, that no one on Fox is, etc., etc., so whose side on you on in this, bc I agree including politicians doing it that have agendas and are in the pocket of the NRA. All "extreme". I wanted to prove that people think that any regulations means they are taking away your guns ALL YOUR GUNS and in many nutty cases like LaPierre here, all your rights. That is what is extreme and it is NOT TRUE. And actually you were the one saying I was extreme and "making this up" so obviously I am not. These things are said all over the place even on here. Another thing LaPierre says is that people are "coming to get you" insinuating all kinds of fearful things and I can't get into bc of politics. Again I'll prove it to you if you need.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I agree 100%. There are absolutely some things that should be looked into more to see if it will help. Gun advocates are not opposed to reasonable regulation that will be effective. Banning ARs will not solve the problem and it would be impossible to completely eradicate every gun with similar capabilities from the US.

But you could eliminate the ammo and the guns would be useless. If you make it harder to be able to kill large amounts of people then it is worth doing. No one says anything one thing stops any crime. Jail doesn't stop criminals, but we need jail, cops don't stop all criminals but we need cops.

 

[Domo]

I'm itching to get all political! I... MUST... RESIST!

 

[Colleen27]

Actually, the paranoia around info sharing is more an ACLU concern. After VA Tech, both “sides” called it a major failure on the part of the state of Virginia & both called for cleaning up the process (the same happened after Sandy Hook thigh that wasn’t really the failure there).

There are a couple of groups I've seen/heard opposing common sense information sharing, and I agree, they make for strange bedfellows. It is one of those things that makes the political spectrum look more like a circle... if you go far enough in one direction, you end up on the opposite! Personally I think we need to stop worrying about ALL of the special interest groups, build a robust information sharing plan that ALL law enforcement and public agencies are obligated to participate in, and let the courts settle any questions of constitutionality, rather than kowtowing to untested claims of unconstitutionality put forth by special interests.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

But you could eliminate the ammo and the guns would be useless. If you make it harder to be able to kill large amounts of people then it is worth doing. No one says anything one thing stops any crime. Jail doesn't stop criminals, but we need jail, cops don't stop all criminals but we need cops.

Same as with trying to rid the US of all guns, you aren't going to be able to rid the US of all ammo. Sure, they can stop the manufacture and sale of ammo and guns in the US, but people will still be able to obtain it. Hard drugs aren't made and sold legally in the US, but you can still find them on every street corner. A gun/ammo ban will not really make things harder to obtain, it will just create a large black market for it. Not to mention, they will never be able to get all of the guns and ammo away from the people that already possess it. It will not solve anything.

Of course we need jail and cops, and no, they do not stop all crime. But that at least does help to provide punishments for those who commit crimes and the people to enforce it, while at the same time not infringing on anyone's constitutional rights.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

This thread does not need you to bring up...yet again on the Boards..conspiracy theorists and launching into a diatribe when this thread isn't even related to that and just what in tarnation do you mean by "your hero". What are you going on about?

Strike that..respectfully I don't even want to know.

YOU are the one that continually responds to my threads, and with wrong info to boot. Again just for the record THIS is what this thread is about. It is not conspiracy theories when LaPierre the head of the NRA is saying things to fear monger people to fight intelligent gun control laws. AND buy more gun It is absolutely what this thread is about.

Wrong. First, that link makes no mention of a comparison to “other” rifles. It compares exclusively to handguns, and under very specific circumstances.

A typical deer hunting rifle fires a bullet at roughly the same velocity as an AR-15, but with 50% greater diameter and triple the mass. I can assure you, the damage it does makes the AR-15 round look like a cork gun in comparison.

In fact, the #1 complaint from field soldiers when the M16 was implemented was that it was ineffective against enemy soldiers in comparison to the Garand rifle and the M14 used previously.

And while it’s true the typical AR-15 round expends more energy than a 9mm handgun round, the heavier handgun rounds actually penetrate better than the much lighter bullets used in the AR-15 (assuming expanding ammo is used).

AR-15s designed to fire off more rounds and faster reloads making them better at killing than a rifle and then they do the bump stock thing and they are more or less simjlar to automatic weapons so really nice try. We all know why they were designed as such to kill faster and more people firing more rounds and faster. That's why they are called ASSAULT RIFLES. Do you go hunting with an assault rifle, they certainly aren't designed for that. A real hunter doesn't go into the woods with a machine gun to shoot a deer. If you don't go hunting with one, what do you need one for.

 

[Domo]

OK, I'll dip in just for kicks...

I may have said this already. With regards to the vasty over-possession of guns in the USA, we can look towards the nasty bout of knife crime in London. In a distressing number of cases in London, carriers of knives cited the fact that EVERYONE ELSE carried a knife as an excuse to bear them themselves. A self-fulfilling prophecy, you could call it. People don't feel safe, so they arm themselves. Whether this is an example of gang warfare or a lack of trust in the police I don't know, but it seems to apply to the USA and guns equally - many armed individuals I am led to understand arm themselves because it's the only way for them to ultimately feel safe.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Same as with trying to rid the US of all guns, you aren't going to be able to rid the US of all ammo. Sure, they can stop the manufacture and sale of ammo and guns in the US, but people will still be able to obtain it. Hard drugs aren't made and sold legally in the US, but you can still find them on every street corner. A gun/ammo ban will not really make things harder to obtain, it will just create a large black market for it. Not to mention, they will never be able to get all of the guns and ammo away from the people that already possess it. It will not solve anything.

Of course we need jail and cops, and no, they do not stop all crime. But that at least does help to provide punishments for those who commit crimes and the people to enforce it, while at the same time not infringing on anyone's constitutional rights.

It will absolutely make it harder and you never were given constitutional rights to own an AR 15 and if we go there to the constitution that was for people that were in a militia, which means soldier, which was before we had a standing army and national guard and all men were trained to be soldiers or to defend the country obviously that does not relate to now as now we have our military "standing army". So that is out the window also. You do not have the right to a hand grenade or a rocket launcher or a tank, a well regulated militia, latin milit meaning soldier.

 

[Domo]

militia

"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". Fortunately there is no emergency for which to arm the population, unless Queen Elizabeth decides to invade

[ETA] And with that sneaky comment, I shut my gob and YAGE

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

YOU are the one that continually responds to my threads, and with wrong info to boot. Again just for the record THIS is what this thread is about. It is not conspiracy theories when LaPierre the head of the NRA is saying things to fear monger people to fight intelligent gun control laws. It is absolutely what this thread is about.

Your threads? Pretty sure you weren't the creator of the threads. I just remember your posts from other threads that I also was commenting on...uh sorry?

Please just stop responding to me about the person-I simply said you keep talking about him in various gun threads. If you don't want to give someone credit for their thoughts stop bringing them up. I don't care about the guy, I don't listen to that extreme stuff, etc.

I'm more than willing to discuss with you about the waffle house incident if you'd like to.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So they can't waive the bond, but they can revoke it right away? It's odd that a mass murder is not one of those specific cases.

Yeah..agreed.

It's sad that the only way people are taken care of in these cases is through a Go Fund Me campaign where Go Fund Me keeps 5%.

I think Go Fund Me is a great thing when used in appropriate things and it does allow a very easy way to people all over to donate and I know their cut is more about admin stuff but you're right the cut sucks.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

OK, I'll dip in just for kicks...

I may have said this already. With regards to the vasty over-possession of guns in the USA, we can look towards the nasty bout of knife crime in London. In a distressing number of cases in London, carriers of knives cited the fact that EVERYONE ELSE carried a knife as an excuse to bear them themselves. A self-fulfilling prophecy, you could call it. People don't feel safe, so they arm themselves. Whether this is an example of gang warfare or a lack of trust in the police I don't know, but it seems to apply to the USA and guns equally - many armed individuals I am led to understand arm themselves because it's the only way for them to ultimately feel safe.

Your threads? Pretty sure you weren't the creator of the threads. I just remember your posts from other threads that I also was commenting on...uh sorry?

Please just stop responding to me about the person-I simply said you keep talking about him in various gun threads. If you don't want to give someone credit for their thoughts stop bringing them up. I don't care about the guy, I don't listen to that extreme stuff, etc.

I'm more than willing to discuss with you about the waffle house incident if you'd like to.

Sorry long day and draining, I meant you continuously respond to my POSTS not threads. You are right it is not my thread, but you continuously respond to my posts I meant. As far as me talking about LaPierre he is the leader of the NRA and I think I said something about him many weeks back in another thread so I don't know what others you are referring to but I am sure I thought it relevant to the topic. At least I am not talking about copper from light posts in a gun thread hehe. Teasing. This is draining and I had my say and am outta here. Thank you all for taking the time to listen, I hope, to what I had to say even if you don't agree. Or maybe I could have made some think about it a little, that's all I can hope for.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Sorry long day I meant you continuously respond to my POSTS not threads. You are right it is not my thread, but you continuously respond to my posts is what I meant. As far as me talking about LaPierre he is the leader of the NRA and I think I said something about him many weeks back in another thread so I don't know what others you are referring to but I am sure it was relevant to the topic. And that's my prerogative, at least I am not talking about copper from light posts in a gun thread.

Hmm..k. I was trying to be polite and move on the discussion but appearantly you don't want to and feel the need to take shots for whatever reason. Please move on.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

AR-15s designed to fire off more rounds and faster reloads making them better at killing than a rifle and then they do the bump stock thing and they are more or less simjlar to automatic weapons so really nice try. We all know why they were designed as such to kill faster and more people firing more rounds and faster. That's why they are called ASSAULT RIFLES. Do you go hunting with an assault rifle, they certainly aren't designed for that. A real hunter doesn't go into the woods with a machine gun to shoot a deer. If you don't go hunting with one, what do you need one for.

First off, people hunt with AR15s all the time. The reason why is because it's not a machine gun. You trying to equate it to a machine gun does not suddenly make it one. An AR15 is semi-auto. There is no such thing as a semi-auto machine gun. The AR15 does not fire any faster than your finger can pull the trigger, same as any other semi-auto gun. Bump stocks are already in the process of being banned.

AR15s are not designed to fire off more rounds or have faster reloads than any other semi-automatic weapon, whether it be a semi-auto shotgun, handgun, hunting rifle, or AR15. Someone shooting any of these weapons can fire off rounds at the same exact speed.

It's as simple as this. Kids spend 16 years in a vehicle with their parents while their parents drive, yet the kids don't know how to drive until they go through the classes and practice for themselves. If you don't own an AR15 or understand how it actually operates, which it is clear you do not, then you know as much about ARs as a 16 year old who has never sat in the driver's seat knows about driving.

In regards to fear mongering, it goes on both sides. How about the fear mongering about "assault weapons?" The original definition of "assault weapon" is any weapon with selective fire capability. That definition cannot include AR15s or any other semi-automatic weapon because they do not have selective fire capability. Labelling them incorrectly as assault weapons makes them sound like they are machine guns or something that is used by the military when in reality, they are not. Militaries do not use AR15s. People own AR15s for purposes of hunting, target practice, and protection, same as any other gun.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

YOU are the one that continually responds to my threads, and with wrong info to boot. Again just for the record THIS is what this thread is about. It is not conspiracy theories when LaPierre the head of the NRA is saying things to fear monger people to fight intelligent gun control laws. AND buy more gun It is absolutely what this thread is about.




AR-15s designed to fire off more rounds and faster reloads making them better at killing than a rifle and then they do the bump stock thing and they are more or less simjlar to automatic weapons so really nice try. We all know why they were designed as such to kill faster and more people firing more rounds and faster. That's why they are called ASSAULT RIFLES. Do you go hunting with an assault rifle, they certainly aren't designed for that. A real hunter doesn't go into the woods with a machine gun to shoot a deer. If you don't go hunting with one, what do you need one for.

A) there are plenty of people saying “ban ALL guns”. They exist. Their words are on record. It’s not a myth.

As for your reply to me, wrong on nearly all counts. Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in heavy-hitting hunting rounds have been available since before WWI. And until 1934, full-autos. Bonnie & Clyde carried a full-auto BAR in .30-06. It’s not particularly difficult to “bump fire” any semiautomatic. I do it with my wife’s pistol.

Assault rifles were NOT designed to “kill better” than the weapons previously used by the military. They were designed to be more portable - aka lighter - than the much more powerful BATTLE RIFLES that were carried in WWII & Korea. And one of the prerequisites for reducing weight is reducing ammo weight. Smaller bullets, less powder, less brass (and less cost) = less power, but soldiers can carry more of it. The term “assault weapon” was created by the military to represent these new rifles that while having more down range power than a handgun were still a huge step down in power from battle rifles.

The reduction in power was a compromise to try not to weigh down soldiers who often had to travel long distances on foot in severe heat and engage an enemy at relatively close range, often hidden. The ability to carry more ammo allowed our troops to utilize “suppressive fire” where rounds are fired at will in the general direction of the enemy in the hopes of pinning them down. This differs from previous wars where soldiers were attempting to kill individual enemy soldiers, often at great distance with high-powered battle rifles. Incidentally, many soldiers in Afghanistan were outfitted with battle rifles as the longer ranges made assault rifles ineffective against enemy combatants. Long range sniper rifles (nothing more than elk hunting rifles) have been employed with great effect in SW Asia as well.

As for the “need” for an AR-15, they make an excellent self defense weapon as well as a decent coyote rifle (my coworker uses his for that). I don’t own one. I use a .260 Remington for deer. It’s considered a good youth gun and it’s more than twice as powerful as a typical AR-15 (again, AR-15’s are available in a multitude of calibers, the most common of which is actually among the least powerful). For elk, I use a .338 Winchester Magnum which is more than triple the power of an AR-15. Both of the above calibers are readily available in semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines, BTW.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

OK, I'll dip in just for kicks...

I may have said this already. With regards to the vasty over-possession of guns in the USA, we can look towards the nasty bout of knife crime in London. In a distressing number of cases in London, carriers of knives cited the fact that EVERYONE ELSE carried a knife as an excuse to bear them themselves. A self-fulfilling prophecy, you could call it. People don't feel safe, so they arm themselves. Whether this is an example of gang warfare or a lack of trust in the police I don't know, but it seems to apply to the USA and guns equally - many armed individuals I am led to understand arm themselves because it's the only way for them to ultimately feel safe.

That was the argument against concealed carry ~25 years ago when it was illegal in most states for all but a handful of civilians (like judges and prosecuting attorneys). Today, some form of concealed carry is legal in all 50 states & it’s quite a common practice. Our current homicide rate is half what it was ~25 years ago.