Louis bought an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle from a gun store at 2 p.m. Wednesday,
The killer bought the gun , an AR-15, and high velocity bullets, just hours before his shooting spree. Interestingly, he already had a hand gun that he bought a few days earlier. He could have used the handgun in his attack but decided he wanted more firepower, perhaps with which he intended to hold off police.
The gunman who killed four people at an Oklahoma medical building Wednesday had been a surgery patient of one of victims, Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin said in a news conference Thursday.
The shooter, Michael Louis, who police also found dead, shot and killed Dr. Preston Phillips, Dr. Stephanie Husen, Amanda Green and William Love in a medical building on the campus of Saint Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Franklin said.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, hospital shooting: Gunman who killed 4 had been a patient of a victim, police chief says | CNN
The killer bought the gun , an AR-15, and high velocity bullets, just hours before his shooting spree. Interestingly, he already had a hand gun that he bought a few days earlier. He could have used the handgun in his attack but decided he wanted more firepower, perhaps with which he intended to hold off police.
The madness continues, and will until these weapons are banned in the US.
Tags
Who is online
384 visitors
A mass shooter, yesterday, decided he wanted an AR-15 to use to kill people. Not any old gun, an AR-15. And people think this is not a problem.
It isn't a problem that can be solved. If all sales were banned today, there are still millions of guns in circulation.
There is no way to prevent people obtaining guns from other people, be they criminals or someone buying a gun from a friend or neighbor. There is no way to monitor such transactions.
A determined shooter will find a source for a gun. The anti-gun crowd simple wants to show it is "doing something", which always turns out to be nothing.
The AR-15 can and should be banned from any more sales. It is damaged goods and a menace to our well being.
I dont believe anyone has a "right" to own those guns. The belief that they do comes from a politicized Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for the private ownership of high speed weapons with high velocity ammunition.
the only right you pursue is the right to troll
Again, do you even know what trolling is? He expressed an opinion. That you don't like it is NOT in any way shape or form trolling..............FFS
To YOUR well being. Good thing we all aren't you.
I have been on internet forms since 2001. You are as 'amateur' of a commentator as anyone I have ever seen.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it.
That's why you're so good at it, 21 years of well honed experience.
Well there is where your belief is in conflict with everybody else's rights. Fact of the matter is, you belief means absolutely nothing when it comes to the fact that people do have the right to purchase these firearms.
So I'll offer you an easy solution. You don't want an AR-15. Good for you. Don't buy one. Let somebody who isn't afraid of an inanimate object purchase it.
Ummmm. That actually comes from the 2nd Amendment and legislation. Firearms CAN be purchased and special permits CAN be obtained for some military grade weapons. Keep in mind there are some military weapons that do not require a permit to purchase.
And exactly where is ammunition even mentioned in the Constitution?
"I have been on internet forms since 2001. You are as 'amateur' of a commentator as anyone I have ever seen".
You certainly haven't learned how to debate intelligently and with logic in all that time.
I guess. I haven't been able to find that either. Maybe we aren't reading the correct Constitution.
I don’t agree. If this were a problem we all really wanted to take on, as a society, we could collect those guns. We would just need the collective will.
I mean, we talk all the time about rounding up millions of illegal aliens and that seems pretty hard, too. We could do either one if we just want to badly enough.
Sure, but we could a make it a policy to make that search as hard as possible. We build border walls even though people can climb over. We take vaccines even though breakthrough infections are a thing. We take all sorts of measures to fight things we don’t like. They rarely work 100% of the time, but they might work enough that we’re glad we made the effort.
“They rarely work 100% of the time, but they might work enough that we’re glad we made the effort.”
Well said. While too many snipe about the minutiae, too many innocents are being buried while the discussion is fruitless.
Just to make sure I understand. You want the AR-15 and only the AR-15 to be banned?
Also I noticed you forgot to respond to a few questions from Texan. I am curious to know how you would address those concerns.
what will you do to stop the 10-15 million in private hands already?
Confiscate them by going door-to-door??
Practice does not always make perfect
“Confiscate them by going door-to-door??”
Nope…simply grandfather them in while offering a thirty-day window before the institution of a ban on the manufacture and sale, public or private, on the AR-15. Reasonable?
“what will your solution accomplish other than no new ones being made?”
It will ensure that no they will no longer be legally sold or manufactured. The 10-15 million number you cite will still be in the hands of their owners.
As for the gun shop owners, offer a buy-back program to cover their costs and extend it to private owners should they wish to sell. Reasonable?
Not Reasonable, Many people that have them will not comply
Well hell, that's easy.
Since they can no longer be sold, they really have no value. Therefore the fair market value for such guns is $0.
See, I can be a Democrat... /s
In your recommendation, what about the purchase of an M4?
True, but they can't shell out for these as these will no longer be available for purchase.
But if we REALLY want to expand on the old partisan framework, we can add a $50 disposal fee for each weapon payable on delivery of the weapon to the proper authorities.
Now how Progressive is that?
“You want tax dollars going to buy the weapons you want gone?”
No single individual has a say in how tax dollars are allocated. Accordingly, I have no problem with it. Setting a fair market price will be up to the legislators as they draft the bill. And as you cite, law-abiding owners should have no issue with following any restrictions on the private sale of the weapon they own. Reasonable?
“Many people that have them will not comply”
You mean the law-abiding gun owners invariably cited? They will still own their weapons, just one restriction on how they can be legally sold. How is that not reasonable, that is if you actually want a reasonable discussion?
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
PER CURIAM.
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex- tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
I keep hearing 'reasonable' as 'what am I going to give up today?'. Does reasonable also include restructuring interstate pistol carry to one standard?
“I keep hearing 'reasonable' as 'what am I going to give up today?”
And that is exactly the entrenched mindset that leads to the acceptance of daily funerals, weekly mass shootings, and the timeless unwillingness to engage in ‘reasonable’ discussion.
Again - Does the reasonableness of reform include streamlining the onerous laws that already exist? If you're telling me to take 2a and go away, I will. Bye.
“..,the reasonableness of reform include streamlining…”
Yes. The entire code needs revisited, debated, rewritten, and enforced accordingly. We are not that far apart.
Are you willing to have one now?
Reread every preceding comment and determine for yourself if they were or were not offered in a reasonable fashion.
everything mentioned tells me a very lucrative black market ( that already exists BTW) will be used .
This is not a strong argument against buybacks.
How much money do we already spend on absolute junk? And how much money are the lives of children worth? Would it be worth spending a few million of our tax dollars if it meant we could have the Uvalde children back? I think so.
I can’t say for sure it would have prevented Uvalde, but you can’t say it wouldn’t have either.
On this particular issue, debating the cost just makes it sound like a person cares about money or guns more than children, and that is not going to win friends.
And exactly what does that have to do with my comment.....Oh that's right...
Nothing. And you are surprised why? LOL
And they get their panties in a wad when they are told that is one of the many reasons people laugh at them.
If even private sales of AR-15s are banned they will be exponentially harder for people to get on short notice.
AR-15s rotting in private collections is much less of a problem than AR-15s that can be bought hours before a shooting spree.
Even one.
Yes, any old gun. It says he also bought another gun a few days before and he brought it with him. The AR-15 was half the arsenal, not the whole thing. Do you even care what the other gun was?
I know what the other gun was. You are still missing the point. He already had a gun that would kill the doctor, and anyone else that got in his way. Why did he go out an hour or two before the shooting to buy an AR-15 to use later that afternoon ?
Maybe because he always wanted one and he knew he was gonna die anyway? Who knows. As has been said ad nauseum in cases like this, it doesn't make anyone less dead.
He is dead and we will never know for sure. Anyone pretending they do know why the psychopath needed that particular gun is either guessing or calling on their own inner psychopath to answer the question for him.
Oh, I think we know why he wanted it.
You might think you know but that is a far cry from actually knowing. I kinda wonder if he didn't buy it because he considered all the hype from cnn and msnbc about it was a pretty good product endorsement.
Are we really going to speculate on how thoughtful or strategic this guy was? Are you really going to try to make the argument that he weighed the tactical capabilities of his little arsenal and decided he needed better ballistics? To shoot unarmed people in a hospital?
And a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handgun from a local pawn shop.
They don't care about the more powerful .40 caliber. It's that .22 caliber AR 15 they are deathly afraid of.
The guy had a hand gun in his possession. Why didnt he use it? Why did he buy an AR-15 specifically to use at this hospital ?
I dont have to ask him, I'm not an idiot.
He bought it May 29th after surgery.
It's been reported that he fired both.
Maybe a Black, right-wing gun lover?
Questions you should be asking him and not me.
You claim to know everything about this subject, so I'm asking you.
And where did I do this?
If he wanted to kill the doctor, a handgun would have been just fine.
The bullshit excuses you people give for what is obviously something of great concern (buying a specific gun to use in a mass murder) are a hoot.
It doesn't matter all that much what gun he bought or used. According to the note found he wanted to kill the doctor because the doctor operated on him and he felt he wasn't getting help for the pain and problems.
What I want to know is what other red flags were just missed or ignored by people around him? Was there anything else in his background that should have prevented him from buying a gun in the first place? There are still too many unanswered questions to this.
Is your question even relevant?
That must be coming from one of his other voices. You think it could be the onset of Schizophrenia?
You do realize that it is YOU making a big deal about buying a specific weapon to use right?
No, that's not it.
To most leftists, since it is a black that did these killings, it is obvious that this guy suffered from mental illness.
No way it could have been a domestic terrorist or hate crime.
You really know your guns.
He seems to. Since the subject is about guns isn't it great to have someone with subject expertise to be part of the discussion?
I dont see expertise on types of guns and bullets having much bearing.
Anyone can be an expert in seeing the damage these weapons do to the human body.
It does help to know what you are talking about. Generalizations makes the person talking look like an idiot.
Unless the goal is to ban all guns a knowledge of guns and different types of ammo is extremely important. If the goal is to ban all guns you might as well stop now, that isn't going to happen.
Why did he buy an AR-15 specifically to use at this hospital ?
Because he heard don lemon and Chris hayse use the term ar15 over 200 times in the last month and he figured if it was good enough for them it was good enough for him
Obviously some people have no problem with that.
Please don’t equate an AR-15 to a .22.
At my comment @ 4 , I criticized the dishonest tactics of the gun control side. Equating an AR-15 with a .22 is one of the pro-gun lies.
No one who knows anything about guns would pick being shot with a .223 from an AR-15 over a .22LR.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a fan of AR-15s. They are fantastic weapons. In fact, if we were going to get rid of all guns but one, I’d say, let’s keep that one. But it’s not the same as a .22.
Have a .22 LR conversion kit for my AR-15. Just a bolt and magazine swap.
Excellent for inexpensive plinking, target shooting and small game hunting.
Debateable
Just read an article about this on my news feed , and police are saying that the shooter chose the location on purpose to inflict as many casualties as he could . any guesses what they think his critera for choosing the location was ?
He chose the location because he had a grudge against a doctor there.
thats not exactly whats being reported and said by the authorities . they seem to think the facility being a Gunfree zone was a contributing factor. and if his grudge was with the dr , why more casualties ? or should i ask him?
Seems like the doctor would be easier to track down at his office.
Easy pickin's. No guns, no resistance. What the fuck is wrong with you?
All thanks to the anti-gun rhetoric.
Bullshit. You are just being negative to be negative. It makes all kinds of sense. If you are going to shoot up a bunch of people, are you going to walk into a police precinct? Or a school or city hall or hospital where you know there will be no resistance?
How about a church, just had a shooting in a church in Ames Iowa last night. Two women killed, but I'm sure there will be a lot of ''thoughts and prayers'' for them.
“Or a school or city hall or hospital where you know there will be no resistance?”
Resistance? America is not, or at least should not be considered a war zone. Terms too often thrown out in justifying the body count; resistance, body armor, weaponry, caliber, secured access, armed guards, etc. do little to belie that hope.
That was even in the parking lot. No place safe from crazy bastards I guess. Sad stuff. At least he took himself out too......
Huh? What don't you understand about gun free zones? That's all I was saying. IF some sick bastard wants to commit carnage without regard for anything except doing the deed and inflicting as much pain as possible, said bastard is going to pick a place where it is known there wouldn't be an immediate pushback. Ultimately they're going to die. Either by self or others and they obviously don't care.
“IF some sick bastard wants to commit carnage…”
You miss the point.
And it is not IF, it is WHEN…and therein lies the problem.
I could point out that a majority of mass shooting occure in this country in what most people would consider places guns are not allowed , a gun free zone .
I actually have no problem with a place being designated a gun free zone , as long as there is appropriate notification that said place is covered by "gun free status " and many places do so by simply having a sign at the door .
i see a sign , its my choice to disarm and go in , or go somewhere else and i fully respect the property owners right to make that designation it is after all private property belonging to someone else even IF it is open to the public .
Jim i dont think its really a situation of less resistance, one CAN act even if they are not armed , the odds of being sucsessful are greatly diminished though , but more of a fact that those intent on doing such things dont want others to be able to use the same force as they themselves intend to use , it is easier for those people to shoot places and people up , if those they intend to do harm to are not capable of defending themselves in a like manner of force as is used against them , those intent on doing harm are exrsizing their own form of gun control, being the only one with a gun , and those it is used against , without the means to respond , become the ultimate victims .
I know where and when ,If i choose to carry , and i dont always ,where i can and can not carry, government buildings local state and federal are generally off limits , anyplace that has posted signage designating the property as no guns allowed , here , it includes bars or places that serve adult beverages , which usually have the no guns allowed sign anyway here .
i really ticked off a friend of mine discussing the gun free zone thing , he carries , i posted a sign at my gate ,no guns allowed ( BUT in small print , it said without permission of the property owner ) he went kattywumpus and said that would be aviolation of his right to carry. i looked at him and laughed as did several others at the bon fire in my yard , and i told him , on private property belonging to another, you actually have NO rights , except to leave if the conditions are unsuitable .
There's a difference between making a place a war zone and ensuring the security and safety of the people. Ensuring security and safety can be done without making it a war zone.
Dont doubt he was pissed at his Dr , but im inclined to think he was pissed because he didnt get the DRUGS he thought he should get for his pain to allieviate the pain from said Dr ..
1 1/2 years ago I had Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal cancer. This surgery, while life saving, commonly causes severe postoperative pain. I remained in the hospital and was on my back for three more months with two follow-on surgeries. This SOB was on his feet in several days, he must have been a big pussy.
Yea yea yea
By all means, we should talk about this stuff, but the hyperbole and outright dishonesty in these debates (from all sides) drives me nuts. E.g.,
Any round coming out of an AR type gun - or any rifle, for that matter - is moving at a high velocity, especially when contrasted with your average handgun or shotgun. They only mention it to horrify the reader more - not because it’s relevant to anything. If you think handguns and shotguns are “safe” because of slower muzzle velocity, you’re a fool.
Yes, he could have. In fact, about 85% of firearm homicides are committed with a handgun.
Who thinks this maniac wouldn’t have killed anyone if Jim Bob’s Gun Emporium or whatever happened to be all out of AR-15s?
You managed to totally miss the point.
You managed to totally not make one.
I can believe that .
I often see statistics and percentages that state the my state of Wyoming has a higher firearms death rate than chicago, problem is they fail to tell what the actual breakdown of the situations are .
Of the firearms deaths here . i will say they estimate that 80% or more of those deaths( i have seen it claimed as high as 87%) are from suicide the other 20% or less would include actual criminal activity usually related to drugs or strong arm violence , so that would have to also be broken down into both lawful use such as self defense or use by LEO or unlawful use such as armed robbery , and we can not forget about true accidents which fall under human error
So my guesstimation , even though wyoming is the least populated state , is we dont have a gun problem , we have a people problem.
All the publicity on shootings could give other loose nuts the idea for them to do it too
I think thats what we are currently seeing , people are seeing the reporting , and the way things are talked about , and figure they can get their 5 seconds of fame themselves and feel avenged for some supposed wrong or injustice they think they have suffered . i say 5 secs of fame because thats about how long it stays until the next shooting grabs the headlines away from them and their acts .
the media would be doing agreater service by NOT naming those that commit the crimes and simply stay with ok blank male /female , aged blank , used whatever to commits said crime . take away the naming and noteriety and they dont get famous by name .
The AR-15 is just the latest in a long string of copy-cat gun-toters. Winchester, i.e. "repeating rifle", Colt, Thompson, 357 Magnum, AK-47, 9mm...
paraphrase "The killer in the movie's got a .45, so they want a .45. And not just one"
Hell, I'm sure people were going around wanting the "David Sling-Shot Special" after Goliath took his dirt nap.