California synagogue shooting

[PhotonGuy]

There has just been a shooting in a California synagogue, one of the states with the strictest gun control laws. I would like to say hats off to the off duty border patrol agent who took a shot at him, I only wish the border patrol agent had better aim and hit him instead of just his vehicle. Here is the article.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...uthorities-say

[Tom Servo]

The response, of course, is what we'd expect. This year's version of the "universal background check" bill is HR8, and politicians are claiming this bill would have stopped the shooting.

The only problem is, the shooter was 19 years old. Last year, Governor Brown signed a law raising the age to own a rifle in California to 21. However the shooter got the gun, it wasn't legally, and background checks obviously weren't a deterrent.

He left behind a manifesto, which I have no interest in reading. I'm sure an eager media will tell us all about it while they're plastering his face on the television screen and doing their best to ensure he enters the same pantheon of publicity as Lanza, Cho, and Harris.

Apparently, he praised and emulated the New Zealand shooter (who praised and emulated Anders Breivik), and he posted about white supremacy on the internet.

Healthy people raised in a functional society don't do things like this. That, not background checks or magazine capacity, is the problem.

[kenny53]

Poway is a nice place, had friends the lived there a number of years ago, and I always like the pace of life there.
I am sadden by the hate I see growing in our society. Like Tom Servo I have not read the manifesto so I don't know if the killer is far left or far right. To me it seems most the hate I see on the news comes from left. But that is just my observation. I can not wrap my mind around innocent people being killed in a house of worship just because.

[zxcvbob]

He left behind a manifesto, which I have no interest in reading. I'm sure an eager media will tell us all about it while they're plastering his face on the television screen and doing their best to ensure he enters the same pantheon of publicity as Lanza, Cho, and Harris.

I think they do that because they want to encourage more crazy people to do likewise -- it gives them something sensational to write about and it pushes The Agenda. Win, win; there's no downside from their perspective. The publicity after Columbine might have been accidental. Every one after that has been a cold, calculated decision by the executive editors.

(I don't hate the media, I have that low an opinion of most major corporations)

[Tom Servo]

it gives them something sensational to write about and it pushes The Agenda

And we absolutely need to hold them responsible. The copycat effect has been well established. Unlike gun-control advocates, I'm going to provide three studies that were not done by sympathetic think tanks:

The Effects of Media Coverage on Mass Shootings in the United States


Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings


Mass Killings in the United States from 2006 to 2013: Social Contagion or Random Clusters?

As for Columbine, the media coverage was not only utterly wrong, but the media refused to acknowledge they'd gotten it wrong in their rush for a "scoop." The Columbine shooters weren't bullied loners who just snapped. They were sociopaths who wanted to beat Timothy McVeigh's body count, and they felt they were entitled to engage in mass murder because they were more "highly evolved" than other people. Both had criminal records, both were in court-ordered anger management therapy, and both were themselves bullies.

But it was easier for the media to push the "loner who got pushed too far" narrative because that's what they knew. Dave Cullen's Columbine, which was written 10 years later, finally laid those myths to rest, but it was too late.

Now it's a moneymaker. In the 24-hour news cycle (which was just coming of age in the Columbine shooting), they have to create content. That means roundtables and panels of people speculating before the facts are in, politicians using it as a convenient soapbox for a readymade agenda, and the spread of fear to the general public.

[berettaprofessor]

Now a hate-shooting of one dead and several wounded counts as a major national gun-control initiative I guess.

[Pahoo]

When you "can't" make sense out of the senseless and insane, they you go for things they feel they can control because it fits into their agenda. We no longer commit folks who need help with mental issues and instead let them walk around until they commit crimes. Our LEO's know the threats they face and most of us choose to stay uninformed. …..

One thing that the media did get right, this time was that they described the firearm as
"an AR-Type" rifle.

Be Safe !!!

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by kenny53

To me it seems most the hate I see on the news comes from left. But that is just my observation.

Poway Synagogue: White supremacist.
Christchurch Mosque: White supremacist.
Tree Of Life Synagogue: White supremacist.
Mother Emanuel AME Church: White supremacist.
Oak Creek Sikh Temple: White supremacist.
Islamic Center of Quebec City: White supremacist.

Yes, I can see how these can be mistaken for left wing hate. Incidents like the Easter shooting in Sri Lanka are rightly called out as terrorist attacks. The ones above are all "gun control" problems, or "mental health" issues. Hate is hate, whether it's a Muslim or a Nazi, it's still just hate.

[Tom Servo]

Yes, I can see how these can be mistaken for left wing hate.

Let's steer clear of left/right politics. It's part of the forum rules, and buying into that false dichotomy is what allows us to be manipulated in the first place.

Given the level of polarization, the seeming death of civility, and the ridiculous rhetoric we endure on a daily basis...well, it's hard to imagine some violence not happening. But a Preston Brooks/Charles Sumner slugfest is something altogether different than a person shooting innocents in a place of worship.

Something has gone terribly wrong with us as a society and a people, and unless that changes, things like this will keep happening. Part of that is not buying into the atmosphere of manufactured outrage and hysteria we're being fed.

(This isn't a dig at you, Mark. You just gave me the springboard.)

[DaleA]

One thing that the media did get right, this time was that they described the firearm as "an AR-Type" rifle.

Well.....I didn't save the link to it (and they sometimes correct stories without telling you they corrected it) but one of google top picks said the shooter opened fire with an "automatic rifle".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by kenny53

I am sadden by the hate I see growing in our society. Like Tom Servo I have not read the manifesto so I don't know if the killer is far left or far right.

More like far out, IMHO. I read part of the manifesto, but about the time I reached what appeared to be the halfway mark I decided that I was wasting too much of my life on it. Basically, he hated Jews. That's really neither a far left nor far right attitude/position. That's a sickness.

[kenny53]

My apologies for bring left and right into the conversation. Hate is hate and I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Trying to force such actions into right or left is a trap that divides us. Behavior is much more complicated.

The media has picked up in lots of instances that 'assault rifle' is technically incorrect. Thus, MSSA's, military style, appearance, etc. semi auto appearing military are being used most of the time.

The usual gun world statement that it isn't an assault rifle so it is a nice gun, has become irrelevant. It's like clip vs. magazine. Pointing that out - is becoming a yawn.

Mentioning that it was not fully auto, though, is a good correction. However, when you say that is a good thing - you take the wind out of the sails of freeing up NFA weapons.

[Thomas Clarke]

I hope that the ongoing coverage tells us how the shooter obtained the rifle he used. I hope that the coverage continues as he makes his journey through the criminal justice system in to prison where he stays forever. I hope that the coverage and the justice system encompass the folks that allowed the underage shooter to obtain his weapons. Tough gun laws are no protection against hate.

[Aguila Blanca]

It's beginning to appear that there were two rifles.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/28/c...gogue-shooter/

This article says a military veteran charged the shooter inside the synagogue and made him drop his weapon and scram. But there was an AR-15 on the front seat of the shooter's car when he was arrested. Last I knew, 1+1=2 ... so we need to be asking where/how he obtained his rifles (plural).

[BobCat45]

Here is a link to the story about the Veteran who chased the shooter out.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/this...e-say-1.578867

It says the story is from the LA Times but I did not check there.

Waiting for information on what kind of rifle and whether he purchased it legally or not. Not that it matters... I suppose my calling the shooter disparaging names will not add anything to the discussion, so I won't.

[Double Naught Spy]

AB, the weapon was on a sling. Dropping it would not mean that it didn't go with him.

So not just an interview, but here he is, in person, recounting the details...

https://fox5sandiego.com/2019/04/29/...er-speaks-out/

[PhotonGuy]

The fact of the matter is the shooter was 19. In CA you have to be 21 to buy long guns so the shooter wouldn'tve gotten the guns legally.

[Aguila Blanca]

Can a 19-year old receive a long gun as a gift in California?

[44 AMP]

In CA you have to be 21 to buy long guns

Just curious, when did that law go into effect?? How old was the shooter when it did?

In my state, its been 18 for a long gun, for a long time, BUT last year, the passed a new law, 21 for "assault weapons" (and defined semi autos as assault weapons), but that part of that law doesn't go into effect until this July.

SO, is it possible the shooter was of legal age to buy the AR when he bought it? And isn't, now?? Not that it matter for anything more than discussion...

One point I would mention, for all those cases where these killers "bought their guns legally", no matter which way this one turns out to be, the cry about "they bought their guns legally" is spouted, as if that were something bad. It's not.

"but, but KILLERS shouldn't be able to buy guns legally!!!"
That's right. The shouldn't, and they can't. Period.
"but, but, this killer did!!!"

No, he didn't. He wasn't a killer when he bought the gun legally. He was a law abiding citizen (otherwise the gun sale couldn't be legal) the same as you, or I, or anyone else, who later TURNED KILLER.

the distinction appears to be too subtle for some people to grasp...

[Targa]

Pathetic, evil little coward! That is the most he will ever achieve in life.

[Aguila Blanca]

It appears there are several ways that his possession of a rifle might have been legal. The age 21 restriction only went into effect in January of 2019, and there were exceptions.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/10/cal...#axzz5mYI8EC6j

[50 shooter]

One of the CA members on arfcom knew the victim and had taken a picture of her with his daughter just hours before.

I would say I hope he gets the death penalty but Governor Newsom saw fit to get rid of it. I just hope he doesn't get an insanity deal, let him do life in general population!

Sad situation all around and as usual the left uses it to push their anti gun agendas!

[PhotonGuy]

"but, but KILLERS shouldn't be able to buy guns legally!!!"
That's right. The shouldn't, and they can't. Period.
"but, but, this killer did!!!"

No, he didn't. He wasn't a killer when he bought the gun legally. He was a law abiding citizen (otherwise the gun sale couldn't be legal) the same as you, or I, or anyone else, who later TURNED KILLER.

That's one of the arguments the gun control crowd likes to use. They point out that there are people who at the time don't have criminal records and are able to buy guns legally and do so and then at some point after that cease to be law abiding and use their guns to kill people. That is why guns should be harder to get legally, according to the gun control crowd.

[44 AMP]

I know they like that argument. It's a fallacy, but they do like it. Until you turn it around on them.

Give me all your money! (everything above Govt mandated minimum wage)
Make that money "harder to get"! That way, you won't have money to spend on illegal things (such as dope, or prostitutes) or idiotic legal things, and so, we'll all be safer!

Better have a background check, waiting period and extra fees in order to buy a golf club, (or a car, or a ….(insert object name here..) because somewhere, somebody broke the law with one...

Better require government approval before allowing people to use the internet, because somewhere, someone bashed someone's head with a laptop....

Better get a govt permit, each and every time you want to sleep with your wife, because, well, you know, women have been raped.....

wouldn't we all be so much better? so much safer? if we did that??

(absolutely intentional sarcasm)