Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

At least 12 killed at California bar shooting

101 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

freetoroam
1 minute ago, susieice said:

I was thinking that when I posted it. He was lucky to survive two. I also found a man who was at both and didn't survive this one. 

The facey if for the man who did not survive.

What is strange is these are not regular occurances, so to have the two people at both is really odd. 

Mayby the men where friends and clubbed together, hence why they were at both places? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice
3 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

The facey if for the man who did not survive.

What is strange is these are not regular occurances, so to have the two people at both is really odd. 

Mayby the men where friends and clubbed together, hence why they were at both places? 

I agree. What are the odds? Las Vegas really isn't that far from LA. A lot of young people travel around to concerts just like we did when we were young. What we didn't have then was the crime rate. The mentality that causes mass shootings didn't exist. There are killings reported every day in my area and that's leaving out Philadelphia, which doesn't have near the crime rate of a city like Chicago or LA. And they aren't always shootings. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

There have been 307 mass shootings in the US in 2018 resulting in 328 killed, 1251 injured.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-california-bar-shooting-307th-mass-shooting/1928574002/

Chicago alone has that beat by a country mile and they are calling it a good year.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html

  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
12 hours ago, Arbenol said:

The problem is that we can know everything we need to with hindsight. Many people make threats, but don't end up committing mass shootings. Many have been violent, but don't end up committing mass shootings. I would expect that the 'warning signs' so evident in hindsight are shared by a great many people who do not go on to commit any atrocities. These events are so rare (despite their depressing regularity, the actual proportion of the population doing them is vanishingly small) the chances of heading them off are tiny, and you might just end up with a society that can restrict people's liberties without them actually doing anything to justify it. 

I'm not exactly sure how to interpret your whole post here, Arbenol, but if I think I read you right, you're possibly saying people who make threats shouldn't be taken too seriously when making threats? As to take away their liberties without actually justifying it if they didn't do something? Is that right?

Well here is the thing if that's the case - In this country most states convict people on felony charges for a thing called "terroristic threat" or "terroristic threatening", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

And a lot of these mass shooters did exactly that long before they committed their worse crime later on of mass murder, so they should've of been convicted and incarcerated when they first start making threats to do bodily harm in the first place, which might have prevented their horrific acts of killing a bunch of people, but they weren't. So you'll understand why I don't have problem with taking away certain people's liberties when they make threats and since it would be considered a "terroristic threat" in most states anyway and has been for a long time. Regardless if they ever perform violent acts or not.

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

I found this a while back and it is pretty disturbing to know people can actually play these games on line, 

 

Quote

That acquaintance said she first noticed Lanza’s posts on a forum about the video game “Super Columbine Massacre RPG,” which lets players relive the 1999 Columbine High School massacre from the viewpoint of the killers.

---

Lanza also played a video game called “School Shooter,” in which the player guns down students from a first-person view, 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-lanzas-terrifying-online-life-revealed-mass-shooting-spreadsheets-columbine-collages-and-murder-tumblrs

             ^^^^  WTF  ^^^^

Quote

“No one’s going out and doing personality tests or psychological evaluations on these people,” Langman said. “It remains anonymous. We’re left to guess why are they doing this? What’s their motivation? Is it more of a joke, or are they really serious? It’s probably a mix of these things.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-lanzas-terrifying-online-life-revealed-mass-shooting-spreadsheets-columbine-collages-and-murder-tumblrs

My point is...someone did go out to evaluate Long and nothing was done. 

My other point is = WTF is wrong with people to even think about making these games! 

Even if the "player" does not go out and kill, the fact their minds have imputted playing these kind of games is extremely disturbing.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, freetoroam said:

Are you portraying these as yours?  

Have you been diagnosed with a mental health condition? 

Are you known locally as a weirdo?

Do you post threats online? 

If so, i would remove your gun licence if you have one. 

 

ok lets say you did, do you honestly think he will just give up on guns??? he will buy illegal ones, and no one would know he has them,  it actually seems like a rational move these days, when you right can be taken away even if temporarily,  in case of someone reporting you  are a weirdo. (btw the guy who called may be a weirdo himself, or someone who wants your guns be taken, for many different reasons)  why bother going legal route, when you can have them illegally and no one will try to take them, assuming you do not run your mouth about them. and if you have to use them, well better be judged by 12 than carried by 6

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
16 minutes ago, aztek said:

ok lets say you did, do you honestly think he will just give up on guns??? he will buy illegal ones, and no one would know he has them,  it actually seems like a rational move these days, when you right can be taken away even if temporarily,  in case of someone reporting you  are a weirdo. (btw the guy who called may be a weirdo himself, or someone who wants your guns be taken, for many different reasons)  why bother going legal route, when you can have them illegally and no one will try to take them, assuming you do not run your mouth about them. and if you have to use them, well better be judged by 12 than carried by 6

 

Ofcourse there is this, but as it stands among the cases of mass shooters, majority  guns are legally owned, be it by the shooter or the family.

To the bold bit, this is were the red flag bit comes into it, again the majority of the shooters did run their mouths off. Most posted online pictures of weapons or talked about them on social media. These weirdos can not help themselves, they will run their mouths off.

At least if they can remove the guns from those which could be a threat because of their actions and online threats, then it has to be a start. 

Nothing to say that any of these mass shooters who has legally owned guns, would have gone out and got illegal ones or that it would have been easy for them to do so.

I think what helps towards sending them right over the edge is that they do own or have access to legally owned guns, like a one up on the law. It is their guns and the law can not do anything about it, all adds to their sadistic egos.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, freetoroam said:

 

 

To the bold bit, this is were the red flag bit comes into it, again the majority of the shooters did run their mouths off. Most posted online pictures of weapons or talked about them on social media. These weirdos can not help themselves, they will run their mouths off.

 

 

well i have to agree here , they did all of it,  and more,  actually in very few shootings people was surprised, vast majority were known. so by all means, take their guns,

however, that is pretty pointless if they can go out and buy one illegally,  every gangster has an illegal gun, and so does every drug dealer. we can't stop those from getting one, what makes us think it will be any different with mental cases.

i would feel no less safe if everyone was carrying, most likely i'd feel even safer.

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

Are you portraying these as yours? 

I do own one of them and I would love to own the other.  In relation to the third, I do have a WWI mauser and a WWII Type 99 bayonet.  I also have a copy of Mein Kampf and a Quran, Book of Mormon, King James, and NIV.  Including “Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams of my Father”.

 

Have you been diagnosed with a mental health condition? 

20 years ago I got divorced and went to an employer provided counselor to talk it out.  It was more of a gripe session.  But if this happened under Obamacare, there’d be a chance I’d end up on a watch list and denied purchasing a firearm.  That was the whole point for Obamacare.  Progs would take away our guns through subjective lists.  And everybody at one time or another would have ended up on one of these lists.

 

Are you known locally as a weirdo?

As much as I think about the weirdos here, I’m sure some of them think likewise about me.

 

Do you post threats online? 

Well that’s subjective, isn’t it (see comment about Obamacare above)?  How many took my post as a threat just because I posted a picture of a Swastika?

 

If so, i would remove your gun licence if you have one. 

I own guns (legally) but I don’t need a license.  Some of them, I’ve had since I was little.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
11 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I do own one of them and I would love to own the other.  In relation to the third, I do have a WWI mauser and a WWII Type 99 bayonet.  I also have a copy of Mein Kampf and a Quran, Book of Mormon, King James, and NIV.  Including “Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams of my Father”.

 

 

 

 

 

20 years ago I got divorced and went to an employer provided counselor to talk it out.  It was more of a gripe session.  But if this happened under Obamacare, there’d be a chance I’d end up on a watch list and denied purchasing a firearm.  That was the whole point for Obamacare.  Progs would take away our guns through subjective lists.  And everybody at one time or another would have ended up on one of these lists.

 

 

 

 

 

As much as I think about the weirdos here, I’m sure some of them think likewise about me.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that’s subjective, isn’t it (see comment about Obamacare above)?  How many took my post as a threat just because I posted a picture of a Swastika?

 

 

 

 

 

I own guns (legally) but I don’t need a license.  Some of them, I’ve had since I was little.

 

Your profile does not appear to fit in with those of your Lanza or Harris, their posts and blogs were on a different level! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
13 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Tis true. But with the past mass shooters, each did have signs, Pagourtzis who they said did not raise any red flags, how is this not a red flag, and there was more:

On April 24, Pagourtzis posted a photo of a handgun and a knife on Instagram.

Nikolas Cruz had set off enough red flags and  Adam Lanza, Ian David Long had a lot of signs he was not the full shilling.

How far does someone have to go before they should not be allowed near a gun? 

the authorities were aware of these mass shooters before they went on their killing spree. 

maybe there needs to be some more two and two's adding up to 4 instead of 3 when it comes to the mental health authorities and the police? 

Maybe the red flag should be lowered to a more realistic level,  as it seems they only reach red flag status after they have murdered lots of innocent people. 

 

Hi freetoroam. You know I'm for gun rights but you raised some very good points. Years ago, someone would quip something like "I'd like to see that so-and-so dead".  Today. they just go out and DO it

Yea, standards are due for an upgrade, unfortunately..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
10 hours ago, Gunn said:

I'm not exactly sure how to interpret your whole post here, Arbenol, but if I think I read you right, you're possibly saying people who make threats shouldn't be taken too seriously when making threats? As to take away their liberties without actually justifying it if they didn't do something? Is that right?

Well here is the thing if that's the case - In this country most states convict people on felony charges for a thing called "terroristic threat" or "terroristic threatening", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat

And a lot of these mass shooters did exactly that long before they committed their worse crime later on of mass murder, so they should've of been convicted and incarcerated when they first start making threats to do bodily harm in the first place, which might have prevented their horrific acts of killing a bunch of people, but they weren't. So you'll understand why I don't have problem with taking away certain people's liberties when they make threats and since it would be considered a "terroristic threat" in most states anyway and has been for a long time. Regardless if they ever perform violent acts or not.

I agree with you - in some cases. For example, the synagogue shooter provided clear signs of 'terroristic threat'. I just don't believe that's always the case.

A classification of terrorism is dependent on and ideological component to the motive. It appears that these shootings are more commonly motivated by interpersonal grievances that ideological ones.

Don't know if you've seen this. It's an FBI report on early warning signs. https://globalnews.ca/news/4290607/fbi-active-mass-shooter-guns-warning-signs/

(I can't link directly to it, but if you click on the "laundry list of red flag behaviours" hyperlink it opens the report as a PDF file.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
16 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Tis true. But with the past mass shooters, each did have signs, Pagourtzis who they said did not raise any red flags, how is this not a red flag, and there was more:

 

They did. But that's what I mean by using hindsight. It might seem obvious sometimes. Check out the link In my response to Gunn. You'll see that what we might consider to be obvious warning signs are not a reliable indicator to what the person may actually do.

As to your argument about using those 'red flags' to control access to firearms. Sounds totally sensible to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
On 11/8/2018 at 10:35 AM, aztek said:

well now you see how knee jerk reaction laws that liberals love, (age limit, magazine size limit....etc.)  have absolutely no effect on crime, and mass shootings in reality. they make laws that apply to people that do not go shoot up bars\schools.. yet it does nothing to affect those that do,

I see your point but I don't think you can prove they have absolutely no effect.  Some could argue they prevent more similar shootings.  Just an argument without enough data.

You could also put a lie to the argument that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. It seems good guys under enough stress can become bad guys.  Rather than argue about magazine size, why don't we spend some time and money helping people, vets, kids, and others with mental health  problems?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

 

You could also put a lie to the argument that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. It seems good guys under enough stress can become bad guys.  

you got a point there, we have seen  quite a lot of police shootings that support your opinion, however a lie it is not. because whenever it happens people call other guys with guns, the lie is that it does not help, and you strongly believe it, despite massive evidence to the contrary

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, aztek said:

you got a point there, we have seen  quite a lot of police shootings that support your opinion, however a lie it is not. because whenever it happens people call other guys with guns, the lie is that it does not help, and you strongly believe it, despite massive evidence to the contrary

Yep, I see your point there too.  What I believe strongly is that it would be better to reduce the number of "bad guys" by helping them before they reach the tipping point.  I share an office with a former marine combat engineer and a former army sniper.  Both have wives smart and caring enough to see that they continue their counseling.  Both still have nightmares and trouble sleeping.  Both have some distracted working days where we have to help them out and keep them on track.  If we ask people to fight for us, we should not abandon them when they come home.  That should be a significant part of the defense budget.

Young people with troubled lives may have some similar issues.   When we cut back on school budgets some of the first things to go are non-core items like art and band and maybe school counselors.  A resource for teachers with concerns should be part of the core of any school.  Maybe, they share with a lot of vets that don;t make it the absence of a loving supporting family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

 

On 11/8/2018 at 5:37 PM, freetoroam said:

That is a question.

I do not  how the club works, but is it normal to have off duty officers at a University students night over there? 

Just because its university night doesn't mean its university only. There were probably just drink specials if you showed your school ID. 

On 11/8/2018 at 11:12 PM, susieice said:

This guy is really lucky! I'm just glad he's alright on all counts.

https://6abc.com/thousand-oaks-shooting-survivor-also-survived-las-vegas-shooting/4648465/?sf201876796=1

Yea that's crazy. It's like a real life Final Destination.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 11/8/2018 at 8:10 PM, Black Red Devil said:

It's a crazy world you people live in.  Almost a gun per capita and the massacres continue. Obviously the theory of "more guns to stop the criminals" isn't working if even cops become fatalities when somebody snaps and has easy access to weapons that can kill dozens in the blink of an eye.

It's a result of the change in our culture along with the availability of better firearms.  Reasonable people could probably find a way to limit such weapons in an acceptable way but the problem is that our politics are so divided that there is no trust on such a critical issue.  There have been many instances where politicians on the Left have slipped or been caught saying what their ultimate intention is for gun ownership.  Every time someone loses their grip on reality and decides to lash out as they die, it is heartbreaking for the families and friends but it has happened so often now that it doesn't shock as much.  There isn't even any willingness to compromise on solutions that could decrease these atrocities.  Politicians want to buy votes with their budgets.  Spending billions out of their pocket for strengthening security in schools would definitely reduce the number of such events but they won't do it.  Not ONE THING has changed since the slaughter at Parkland in Florida.  The Left continues to use the inevitable repeat of such shootings as proof of the need for more gun laws and those on the Right can't seem to get the laws passed to spend the money to actually stop armed people from getting inside schools.  The guns are here to stay.  Trying to forcibly remove them would bring Civil War.  The real shame on our nation is that we won't try to do anything to even decrease these events.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
1 hour ago, and then said:

It's a result of the change in our culture along with the availability of better firearms.  Reasonable people could probably find a way to limit such weapons in an acceptable way but the problem is that our politics are so divided that there is no trust on such a critical issue.  There have been many instances where politicians on the Left have slipped or been caught saying what their ultimate intention is for gun ownership.  Every time someone loses their grip on reality and decides to lash out as they die, it is heartbreaking for the families and friends but it has happened so often now that it doesn't shock as much.  There isn't even any willingness to compromise on solutions that could decrease these atrocities.  Politicians want to buy votes with their budgets.  Spending billions out of their pocket for strengthening security in schools would definitely reduce the number of such events but they won't do it.  Not ONE THING has changed since the slaughter at Parkland in Florida.  The Left continues to use the inevitable repeat of such shootings as proof of the need for more gun laws and those on the Right can't seem to get the laws passed to spend the money to actually stop armed people from getting inside schools.  The guns are here to stay.  Trying to forcibly remove them would bring Civil War.  The real shame on our nation is that we won't try to do anything to even decrease these events.  

I think your Civil War part is a bit over the top because people eventually fall into line by the authorities, willingly or not once things get a bit out of hand, but yeah I agree, it would take a brave politician to make such a bold move considering the strong support the gun lobby has in your country but I'm pretty sure intelligent heads on both spectrums can agree a compromise is needed and try to meet midway. 

As Raven pointed out, there are more people who die of cancer but the reverberating effect of dozens getting blown away in an instant surely leaves people uneasy and wary that it can happen to you or even worse, your kids, at any time but above all it surely must give you a sense of frustration you can do nothing about it but put pressure on politicians to change somewhat things around.  The death of a cancer victim, even when it's a small child, for how painful, doesn't have that same effect because you know it's nature and at our current level of evolution this is the best our medical brains can offer.

Yep, it is a real shame more isn't being done.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
19 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Yep, I see your point there too.  What I believe strongly is that it would be better to reduce the number of "bad guys" by helping them before they reach the tipping point.  I share an office with a former marine combat engineer and a former army sniper.  Both have wives smart and caring enough to see that they continue their counseling.  Both still have nightmares and trouble sleeping.  Both have some distracted working days where we have to help them out and keep them on track.  If we ask people to fight for us, we should not abandon them when they come home.  That should be a significant part of the defense budget.

Young people with troubled lives may have some similar issues.   When we cut back on school budgets some of the first things to go are non-core items like art and band and maybe school counselors.  A resource for teachers with concerns should be part of the core of any school.  Maybe, they share with a lot of vets that don;t make it the absence of a loving supporting family.

sure,  no disagreements here, however it is something that would be done in a perfect world, in ours however, we both know it is not happening, no matter how clearly  obvious it appears. it is just not happening.   so the real practical way to protect ourselves, is actually protect ourselves literally, on the spot. bad guys already armed, no laws will or ever have changed that.

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socio
On 11/9/2018 at 1:54 PM, aztek said:

well i have to agree here , they did all of it,  and more,  actually in very few shootings people was surprised, vast majority were known. so by all means, take their guns,

however, that is pretty pointless if they can go out and buy one illegally,  every gangster has an illegal gun, and so does every drug dealer. we can't stop those from getting one, what makes us think it will be any different with mental cases.

i would feel no less safe if everyone was carrying, most likely i'd feel even safer.

 

If we are all armed the safer the whole will be, of that there is no doubt.

The only entity that fears an armed citizenry is a tyrannical government.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the Democrats want us unarmed so badly?

Here is a hint; it is not to protect us from each other!

Edited by Socio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
On 11/9/2018 at 9:10 PM, Arbenol said:

I agree with you - in some cases. For example, the synagogue shooter provided clear signs of 'terroristic threat'. I just don't believe that's always the case.

 

I do see your point that just because someone makes death threats to someone else, it doesn't mean they'll carry them out or even attempt to carry them out. But in this day and age that doesn't mean we should trust our luck and ignore it, because unfortunately we can't afford to do that anymore in today's society with the current level of violence. The death toll is climbing from active shooters who've made previous death threats beforehand, and that is the end result of not taking death threats seriously and believing that not everybody carries those threats out. The active shooter Cruz in Parkland, Florida is a great example of that.

Quote

A classification of terrorism is dependent on and ideological component to the motive. It appears that these shootings are more commonly motivated by interpersonal grievances that ideological ones.

Well I wasn't really talking about terrorism on a large scale from a ideological group specifically, like from Isis or the Taliban, I was talking about making personal death threats one on one to someone's life or making death threats to a group of people, sometimes they charge/arrest people here for that to. Some states just call it "Criminal Threats" rather then "Terroristic Threat". But both labels mean the same thing.

Quote

Don't know if you've seen this. It's an FBI report on early warning signs.

No I haven't seen that before and thanks for the link, Abernol. I downloaded the FBI's active shooter pre-attack behavior study. I find that study very interesting and informative.;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
3 hours ago, Socio said:

If we are all armed the safer the whole will be, of that there is no doubt.

The only entity that fears an armed citizenry is a tyrannical government.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the Democrats want us unarmed so badly?

Here is a hint; it is not to protect us from each other!

I seen a saying recently that said you see how badly they treat us when we are armed just imagine what they'd do if we weren't. 

I cant see any good counter argument to that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
On 11/9/2018 at 1:28 PM, freetoroam said:

I found this a while back and it is pretty disturbing to know people can actually play these games on line, 

 

             ^^^^  WTF  ^^^^

My point is...someone did go out to evaluate Long and nothing was done. 

My other point is = WTF is wrong with people to even think about making these games! 

Even if the "player" does not go out and kill, the fact their minds have imputted playing these kind of games is extremely disturbing.

 

Don't quote me but I think I read a few years ago that the way they get away with making these games is that you have a choice to play either as the shooter or as law enforcement. I still think that these types of games should be banned. JMO.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2

Its not the guns but the nuts behind the guns. I just wish the government would open a lot of mentally ill hospitals, where any person or family can admit a sick and lock them all up.  :sleepy: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.