Shooter was dismissed from Army with psych issues but legally allowed to buy firearms. Texas mall shooter was expelled from military over mental health concerns (msn.com) The gunman who opened fire at a Dallas-area outlet mall, killing eight people and wounding several others, was forced out of the military 15 years ago because of mental health concerns, including his difficulty coping with stressful changes, according to two U.S. officials. After entering basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, in June 2008, Army officials were concerned about Mauricio Garcia's mental health early on and said he also had an adjustment disorder, the officials said. An adjustment disorder is characterized by significant emotional distress and is a common mental health disorder among active duty service members. ................................................................................................................................ At a news conference Tuesday, federal and state officials said the shooter had no criminal history and was able to legally purchase his eight firearms recovered from the scene. Officials were continuing to run background checks on the weapons to determine if they had been used in other crimes. Hank Sibley, the Texas Department of Public Safety regional director, said investigators are looking into his separation from the military and that information about his "fitness for duty" would be forthcoming. Sibley added that he had been working as a licensed security guard for several firms, but was not recently active. Garcia's apparent mental health struggles and extremist beliefs were shared on the Russian social networking site OK.ru, which he had been using to document his life. The posts did not have any likes and were not shared by other users.
This guy should not have been allowed to purchase assault rifles. I'm 100% on board with that. If you get dismissed from the military with psych issues, that's good enough for me. He should not have been able to purchase an AR-15 legally.
Uhh… you realize different states/jurisdictions have their own laws, right? Including gun laws? It’s like you don’t know how anything works. Obviously what gets debated mostly here is what people want for federal law. But theoretically if part of issuing “permits” for rifles is to demonstrate a use case, then yeah it’s reasonable to consider where a person resides. Perhaps requiring the long rifle sale only along with an active hunting license. Again, there is no “use case” to possessing a rifle in a city or a suburb. Some areas are even very stingy with handguns and CCP.
Of course we aren’t. We won’t do anything but continue to let it happen because this is a shithole country.
He was only in the military for 3 weeks I think they call it a separation like a class 3 and it doesn't go on your record. I have also read where he purchased most of the firearms through private sellers which is a another issue
I'll address each of the points you listed in order listed above: 1. A waiting period assumes everyone looking to buy a firearm is doing so in malice. That's infringement. However, I am all for INSTANT background checks and closing the gun show loophole as well. We don't need to bring back the meat of the Brady Act. Violent gun crime has decreased most years since it was gutted. 2. Wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings. Some of the mass shootings were stifled by innocent bystanders who were carrying. Not sure why this is on your agenda as there is no evidence carrying leads to mass shooting or gun crime in general. 3. As if we don't already have tons of data on the subject. There should be a limit, because it's the taxpayer's money. We have more than enough data to analyze. 4. I'm all for it, but it should only be reserved for the most serious of diagnoses and should be very transparent, black and white as to who is disqualified. Generally speaking, that number should remain very small. 5. Off the top of my head, do we not have this in place already? I understand some states vary. I'm not aware that you can purchase firearms as a convicted felon. If so, yes, we should block those sales. Ditto if you've been convicted of a violent gun crime ever. 6. Pointless. Won't stop anything from happening. Someone who wants to shoot will buy the ammo within the time frame allotted. 7. I could get with this as long as the technology is instant and on point 100% of the time. There should be zero delay in being able to access your firearm. After all, you only need it when you REALLY need it and usually that's within a split second. 8. Assault weapons ban does nothing. Violent gun crime has decreased year over year for the most part while during the same time period, assault weapon sales have skyrocketed. There's simply no evidence to suggest banning assault rifles will slow people from dying at the hand of a gun. We had many more gun deaths 40 and 50 years ago in an era when assault rifles were far, far less prolific. The problem with most of your ideas is they are ineffective and unnecessary, as the data points out. I'll continue to say it, you have to address the mental illness crisis in the nation if you want to solve this. Would love to see more security measures, especially at schools, but I realize that can only go so far. Ultimately, if you don't address the root cause of the shootings, who's to say those demented individuals won't find other means to carry out their revenge on society? It's a problem that is being ignored by the left as they seek to make this about the gun. The gun didn't kill anyone. The person holding the gun killed someone. If you don't address the root cause, you've at most band-aided the problem until it manifests itself in a different way. The issue, as many others, has been wildly politicized and very profitable for both sides. I try to avoid falling into either side's trap. A lot of scare tactics being employed, along with mistruth, misunderstanding and an appetite to want to control other people's lives.
Sure, but you're literally wanting to break it down by zip code based on your post. It's pointless anyway, as anyone who really wants to do harm will drive the 30 minutes to go buy his/her/he/she/its/ gun.
So was the Mexican shooter with parents who don’t speak English a White supremacist ? I’m trying to catch up on this one.
He got kicked out of the U.S. Army and got radicalized. This will help you get up to speed. Texas mall shooter Mauricio Garcia's twisted diary revealed
I’m tempted to dismiss your source as journalistic incest. I like mine better … Washington Post Rushes to Call Texas Mall Shooter a White Supremacist, Shoots Itself in the Foot
The NY Post is owned by the Murdochs. Do you think they're in the habit of identifying people as Nazi sympathizers with no evidence? If anything, they often push back against that narrative. The Redstate article doesn't question whether the reports are accurate about his social media posts, pictures, or writings. It mainly questions whether Hispanic people can even be White. They can.
Seeing as how assault weapons crimes spiked after Bush let the ban on them expire, there is statistical evidence indicating that their promulgation increased deaths from them.
Yes, this is well known issue with Chicago’s gun laws. When the law is a patchwork, it’s only as strong as its weakest link. Hence the call for a better baseline floor on the federal level as far as background checks, mental illness checks/blacklist, assault weapons ban, etc. Chicago has proximity to red states where the guns flow on. Its well known Chicago guns get trafficked from Indiana and elsewhere. Chicago violence: Less than half the guns used in Illinois crime come from Illinois, data analysis shows | abc7chicago.com
I’m not sure what this is so confusing to some. Hispanic isn’t a race. It’s a culture. There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, Arab Hispanics, etc. There are many Hispanics that have mostly European DNA, the same makeup as the people we call ‘white’ in the US. If you walk around my neighborhood in South Florida you would see many ‘white people’ that happen to be Hispanic.
