Wednesday's mass shooting at Fort Hood, in which Spc. Ivan Lopez killed three soldiers and wounded 16 more before turning the gun on himself, may have been caused by an argument over leave forms.
Wednesday's mass shooting at Fort Hood, in which Spc. Ivan Lopez killed three soldiers and wounded 16 more before turning the gun on himself, may have been caused by an argument over leave forms.
A New York Times article quotes an anonymous "law enforcement official" who said Lopez requested leave for "family matters," and was angry when the request was denied. The father of a solider wounded in the attack told WLBT that Lopez came to a personnel office to get a leave form, but was told to come back the next day. Instead, Lopez came back with a gun and opened fire.
Lopez's own family believes he was distraught over the recent deaths of his grandfather and mother, while a friend said Lopez was angry that he was only given a 24 hour leave to attend his mother's funeral.
Lopez was being treated for mental health issues including anxiety and depression, but Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley said Friday that investigators do not believe they were a direct cause of the attack.
Mikeb, how many times must we tell you that what a gun-free zone does is disarm the victims. Some shooters target these zones, while others are going to settle a score, but the reason the shooter chooses a particular place doesn't change the fact that the good people inside are usually going to be unarmed.
ReplyDeleteThis nut job didn't chose this place because he figured there would be no guns. Reports give us a reason why he chose this place, and it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a gun free zone.
Deletenot what he said - He said -- the reason the shooter chooses a particular place doesn't change the fact that the good people inside are usually going to be unarmed.
DeletePay attention: I don't care why he chose the location that he attacked. What I care about is the fact that the regulation there disarmed the people he targeted. What is so hard for you to understand here?
DeleteI, for one, am paying attention. I'm glad to see you finally abandoned that nonsense about gun free zones attracting the mass shooters. You used to be all over that one.
DeleteMikeb, you missed the point again. But did you notice how I said that some mass shooters target gun-free zones? The Aurora shooter, for example. I haven't abandoned anything.
Delete
ReplyDeleteYou don't read your own comments.
You said,
"shooters target these zones"
Then you said,
"I don't care why he chose the location"
So you make a blanket incorrect statement about something you then claim to not care about.
In most places people are going to be unarmed. Even gun owners don't usually carry. Most gun owners don't have a carry permit and do not want one. It's only extremist like you that want to be able to carry everywhere including into the bathroom when you take a shit. Most people don't live by the irrational fear you do.
Anonymous, if you're going to twist my words, you should wait a while. You left out "some" from the line about shooters targeting gun-free zones. But naturally, you think I'm the irrational one.
DeleteThe post was about this shooter and you always change the subject to fit your brick wall pro gun talking points. No you haven't abandoned your tactic of diversion.
DeleteWell here's a fascinating revelation about the shooter--he advocated more "gun control":
ReplyDeleteHe added, "It is stupid to me that anyone can have easy access to a powerful weapon without being mentally evaluated. This makes the government indirect accomplice...
Guess that makes him one of yours, Mikeb. He can join Christopher Dorner, Eric Harris, and the rest in "gun control's" enforcement wing, although of course their base of operations is going to have to be Hell.