Elementry School Shooting. Kids killed. Shooter dead.

[riverrat10k]

Sorry, but I just have to send this one, too.

"The ugly underbelly of this reality is that our drug war kills the majority of the homicide victims every year, when you get analytical about it. We deny people who transact in certain things access to the courts to settle their disputes and so they turn to violence, because the dispute doesn't go away -- only the lawful means to settle it. And we as a people don't give a damn about it in the general sense because (1) those "evil drug people" in some way "deserved it" and (2) they're black.

.................snip................... It gets worse. Our government not only indirectly is responsible for this due to its prosecution of that drug war in some cases it's directly responsible for arming the drug lords. The dystopia and ridiculous nature of a government proclaiming that "we must do something about guns" while it in fact illegally armed Mexican drug lords should make your head explode."

Rest here: http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=215013

 

[Lasjayhawk]

Dreamer, The magic Bushmaster is easy to explain. When they figured out he was 20 and not 24, it couldn't be the handguns as he was too young to purchase them. Kinda like how nobody in his neighborhood heard the shots when he killed his mother. Or the 2nd gunman that didn't exist. Or why he killed himself when he heard the sirens before the police got there.

Now I got to go paint some tinfoil green so I can look like this. :dude: Something doesn't add up here.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Dreamer, The magic Bushmaster is easy to explain. When they figured out he was 20 and not 24, it couldn't be the handguns as he was too young to purchase them. Kinda like how nobody in his neighborhood heard the shots when he killed his mother. Or the 2nd gunman that didn't exist. Or why he killed himself when he heard the sirens before the police got there.

Now I got to go paint some tinfoil green so I can look like this. :dude: Something doesn't add up here.

The media is doing the same thing as they did with Zimmerman, making it up as they go.

 

[davidmcbeth]

So let's get this straight. Sometime between 9:48pm on Friday night, and late Saturday afternoon, this rifle somehow got out of the car and into the school, retroactively shot all the victims, and then was found beside the shooters body, where it was not reported as being on the day of the event, or for nearly 36 hours of news cycle afterward.

One possibility: the 223 rifle WAS in the trunk during the shooting by the loon. Then was removed by the police. Then the police shot the deceased using the 223 rifle and left it in the building.

This would explain all the "inconsistencies" and make them all right, correct? Rifle found in car (correct); rifle used to shoot (correct); rifle found in school (Correct); and ME (mistaking the 223 wounds) to be the fatal wounds (correct).

If anyone can offer another set of logic to explain all the facts reported (and assume that they are correct), then this is the only possible explanation...if the reports were true. Do you think its above reasoning to say that the anti-gunners are so rabid that they would do anything to support their cause?

 

[marshaul]

One possibility: the 223 rifle WAS in the trunk during the shooting by the loon. Then was removed by the police. Then the police shot the deceased using the 223 rifle and left it in the building.

This would explain all the "inconsistencies" and make them all right, correct? Rifle found in car (correct); rifle used to shoot (correct); rifle found in school (Correct); and ME (mistaking the 223 wounds) to be the fatal wounds (correct).

If anyone can offer another set of logic to explain all the facts reported (and assume that they are correct), then this is the only possible explanation...if the reports were true. Do you think its above reasoning to say that the anti-gunners are so rabid that they would do anything to support their cause?

This is absurd. Occam's razor suggests someone either made a mistake, or deliberately lied. The cops wouldn't need to go to all that effort to simply lie, would they? There's nothing preventing them, or the media, from simply lying, is there? That would, you know, explain all the inconsistencies, doncha think?

...




Hey, Dreamer. Not now, OK? There're already enough folks about who are quite willing to make us look like nuts. Your theories can at times be scarily accurate, but it's another battle, and it's not going to help us win this one. Not unless you have concrete evidence. Speculation is counterproductive. This is not the time for tinfoil hat theories, again unless you can prove them. Right now we need to stay firmly grounded in fact, and reason; they are on our side. We don't need to resort to wild theories to be in the right here. Taking this tragedy at face value, we still have the better position. Yours is another battle, for another day. Don't confuse your causes lest they drag each other down.

The incredibly poor timing of your input here makes me wonder, after all this time, if you aren't an agent provocateur yourself. The irony there would be intense. What would what make you, a quadruple agent?


...



Frankly, the eagerness of many to turn to wild scenarios suggests a lack of conviction, as though they feel this needs to turn out to be some kind of conspiracy to save our skins. It's hard to blame one for doubting in the face of such overwhelming tragedy. But, a reasoned analysis in the light of day confirms that the fundamentals haven't somehow changed, that our position is still the correct one.

Please, folks. Let's continue to travel the high road. Let's stick to the facts. Let's stick to reason. They are on our side, and they are sufficient to carry the day. Let the Brady Bunch be the only ones seen engaging in wild histrionics, desperate emotional appeals, and mindless paranoia. Our position will be the better for it, and theirs the worse.

 

[carolina guy]

This is absurd. Occam's razor suggests someone either made a mistake, or deliberately lied. The cops wouldn't need to go to all that effort to simply lie, would they? There's nothing preventing them, or the media, from simply lying, is there? That, would, you know, explain all the inconsistencies, doncha think?

...




Hey, Dreamer. Not now, OK? There're already enough folks about who are quite willing to make us look like nuts. Your theories can at times be scarily accurate, but it's another battle, and it's not going to help us win this one. Not unless you have concrete evidence. Speculation is counterproductive. This is not the time for tinfoil hat theories, again unless you can prove them.

The incredibly poor timing of your input here makes me wonder, after all this time, if you aren't an agent provocateur yourself. The irony there would be intense. What would what make you, a quadruple agent?

There are undoubtedly more possibilities:

1) Someone made a mistake AND intended to lie
2) Someone made a mistake AND lied to cover-up the mistake
3) Someone made a mistake AND lied after being told what to say
4) etc, etc, etc.

 

[randian]

This is absurd. Occam's razor suggests someone either made a mistake, or deliberately lied. The cops wouldn't need to go to all that effort to simply lie, would they? There's nothing preventing them, or the media, from simply lying, is there? That would, you know, explain all the inconsistencies, doncha think?

We can be sure the media wasn't lying in the beginning. They're anti gun. No way they run a "rifle in trunk" story to cover up the shooter having the rifle in his possession. If the media were fabricating a story, they'd have said from the beginning that the shooter had a rifle in his possession, even if it was actually in the trunk. Ergo, they were telling the truth about the rifle being in the trunk.

 

[marshaul]

We can be sure the media wasn't lying in the beginning. They're anti gun. No way they run a "rifle in trunk" story to cover up the shooter having the rifle in his possession. If the media were fabricating a story, they'd have said from the beginning that the shooter had a rifle in his possession, even if it was actually in the trunk. Ergo, they were telling the truth about the rifle being in the trunk.

If the police lied to the press initially (or made a mistake), then what you say could be true, but the press could claim innocence.

Which is precisely why I suspect nobody did anything they couldn't cover up with more lies. Even if the worst is true, it is likely going to be impossible to prove. They will have a plausible explanation for everything – don't expect to find a smoking gun, so to speak.

It can't benefit us to speculate along these lines. We'll end up playing into their hands, and looking the fool.

Stick to the facts. Stick to reason. They are on our side. They are sufficient. We don't need a media or police conspiracy to have the high ground.

Think about it: if the media and anti-gunners engage in underhanded tactics, it's because they're desperate, looking for any way to use this event to push their agenda before peoples' outrage fades. They have to stoop low; they don't have a big window of opportunity here. Let them get their hands dirty, but keep yours clean. In the long run, we will benefit from such a state of affairs.

 

[crazydude6030]

Does anyone have a complete list of laws the shooter broke? I think I saw it posted somewhere but I have been able to find it again.

 

[crazydude6030]

Stick to the facts. Stick to reason. They are on our side. They are sufficient. We don't need a media or police conspiracy to have the high ground.

I don't think that will be enough to stop new laws coming down. Even some of our pro gun guys in office seem to be turning.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I don't think that will be enough to stop new laws coming down. Even some of our pro gun guys in office seem to be turning.

A Texas off duty deputy proved our point, and just set the gun control agenda backwards. He stopped a theater shooter in his tracks by shooting him. Proving the only way to stop these incidents is with a gun.

 

[randian]

A Texas off duty deputy proved our point, and just set the gun control agenda backwards. He stopped a theater shooter in his tracks by shooting him. Proving the only way to stop these incidents is with a gun.

Why would a gun control proponent care? They want guns to only be possessed by cops.

 

[REDDIRT]

Have you guys seen this ? http://www.examiner.com/article/lib...fathers-of-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify

 

[crazydude6030]

A Texas off duty deputy proved our point, and just set the gun control agenda backwards. He stopped a theater shooter in his tracks by shooting him. Proving the only way to stop these incidents is with a gun.

I agree and I think most people here do. Many people who know my stance own guns and ownership feel the need to take their shock out verbally on me.

 

[crazydude6030]

Why would a gun control proponent care? They want guns to only be possessed by cops.

Because cops spend years being trained on how to use a gun and keep it in a fight. At least that's what I heard today <sigh>

 

[randian]

Because cops spend years being trained on how to use a gun and keep it in a fight. At least that's what I heard today <sigh>

Exactly my point. The deputy's shooting proves nothing to gun control proponents.

A cop can prove need for a weapon by using it in self defense. A civilian cannot prove need for a weapon by using it in self defense.

A cop hitting a bystander doesn't prove guns are too dangerous in the hands of a cop. A civilian hitting a bystander does prove guns are too dangerous in the hands of civilians. Notwithstanding, naturally, the fact that cops are more likely than civilians to hit bystanders.

Unless you can penetrate that web of illogic you'll get nowhere.

 

[davidmcbeth]

This is absurd. Occam's razor suggests someone either made a mistake, or deliberately lied. The cops wouldn't need to go to all that effort to simply lie, would they? There's nothing preventing them, or the media, from simply lying, is there? That would, you know, explain all the inconsistencies, doncha think?

This is not the time for tinfoil hat theories, again unless you can prove them. What would what make you, a quadruple agent?

I just noted a chain of events that could explain all the facts that were presented to us and assumed that all the facts were true (or were at least not lies). Not a "tinfoil hat theory" .. a hypothesis if you wish to call it anything.

Unfortunately, I don't think that I can present facts to test the hypothesis at this time. But I will be following up with FOIA requests to learn what I can.

I think one thing is certain: town officials likely screwed the pooch .. I imagine my FOIA requests will be partially denied under the "investigation" exemption.


I do not assume anything in this case, the senseless murder of so many compels a thorough examination .. even if initially deemed absurd.

In so far as the media reporting, they did list a cop as a source for the gun being in the trunk if I recall correctly.


ps if anyone wishes to see any specific record, I can include this in my FOIA request .. just pm me or post the item to this thread.

 

[Sig229]

Have you guys seen this ? http://www.examiner.com/article/lib...fathers-of-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify

Wow.

Thats one hell of a "coincidence".

 

[user]

One possibility: the 223 rifle WAS in the trunk during the shooting by the loon. Then was removed by the police. Then the police shot the deceased using the 223 rifle and left it in the building.

This would explain all the "inconsistencies" and make them all right, correct? Rifle found in car (correct); rifle used to shoot (correct); rifle found in school (Correct); and ME (mistaking the 223 wounds) to be the fatal wounds (correct).

If anyone can offer another set of logic to explain all the facts reported (and assume that they are correct), then this is the only possible explanation...if the reports were true. Do you think its above reasoning to say that the anti-gunners are so rabid that they would do anything to support their cause?

I recall that, at the time of the incident, the police were reporting that the building was still on "lockdown" because they were searching for a "second shooter". My guess is that there was a second shooter, but that person was at the school legitimately, and shooting defensively regardless of the GFSZA. That was the person who killed the assailant, it was neither police nor self-inflicted. But they obviously don't want to prosecute this anonymous guy whose heroism saved lives of children, nor do they want to publicize the fact that someone with a gun on campus took effective action. So they've hushed the whole thing up. "Why don't you just leave town, Mr. Kersey?"

 

[user]

Because cops spend years being trained on how to use a gun and keep it in a fight. At least that's what I heard today <sigh>

I'm afraid that this statement might be taken as something other than sarcasm. Most cops regard the gun as a necessary tool of the trade, they don't like guns, don't like to shoot guns, won't clean their own guns, and never practice. The FBI reported once that over eighty percent of law enforcement bullets expended in emergency situations went unaccounted for, but they knew where the other twenty percent went. And of those, less than two percent hit the intended target, and those shots were mostly accidental and not because of good aim or practice. The gun-totin' civilian community is a much safer group to be armed than the police who are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than Badguy; and in my experience, these are the most socially responsible, self reliant, civilized, and law abiding people on the face of the Earth. I think that cops should not be required to carry guns. In fact, no one who doesn't really want to learn how to use a firearm effectively should not be required to carry one, whether cops, federal agents, or military, because those are the really dangerous people.