Larry McQuilliams
Huffington Post
A gunman fired more than 100 rounds at downtown buildings in Austin and tried to set the Mexican Consulate ablaze early Friday before he died during a confrontation with police, authorities said.
Some of the targeted buildings are near the popular Sixth Street entertainment district, where bars close at 2 a.m., about the same time the shootings began. Thousands of people are typically on the street at that time, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said.
"Many, many rounds were fired in downtown Austin," Acevedo said. "With all the people on the streets, we're very fortunate. I give thanks that no one but the suspect is injured or deceased."
Investigators identified the shooter as 49-year-old Larry McQuilliams of Austin. Police said he had a criminal record but didn't release details, and said they were still trying to determine a motive.
Mexico's Foreign Relations Department issued a statement expressing "profound concern and condemnation" of the attack, but also said "there is no evidence the shots were exclusively directed at our facility."
The gun-rights fanatics love to differentiate themselves from any gun owner who has a criminal record, as if that's some kind of anomaly. The fact is many of them do. And frequently many of them, those with clean records and those without, lose it and misuse their guns.
One way I "love to differentiate [myself] from" this guy is the utter absence in my history of shooting up any towns. Oh, and fatal gunshots--haven't received any of those either--another fairly significant difference. Oh, and the "lose it and misuse [my] guns"--none of that, either.
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, any significant points of commonality between this guy and myself seem rather elusive.
There's that stupid, criminal thinker ego again. I only wish YOU were the only gun loon idiot this country had to worry about.
DeleteKurt, you're just like this guy. You're both unfit gun owners, the only thing that separates you at this point is one single paroxysm of rage.
DeleteKurt, you're just like this guy.
DeleteHmm--the whole "he shot up a town; I didn't" thing, the "he's dead; I'm not" thing, and the "he lost it and misused his guns; I didn't" thing aren't some pretty serious differences, to your way of thinking? I'm afraid the prospects of you ever gaining some rationality are looking pretty bleak, Mikeb.
. . . the only thing that separates you at this point is one single paroxysm of rage.
That "one single paroxysm of rage" that I've never had, and never shown any indication of being prone to having? I don't know about you, but I'd call that a pretty large separation.
Oh--I'm also not one for wearing earrings.
Oh, and did I forget to mention my lack of a felony record, another rather significant disparity between McQuilliams and myself?
DeleteIt's starting to sound as if to find anyone closer to being my direct opposite, one would have to choose . . . you, Mikeb.
I'm glad you put it in those terms. The fact that this dangerous unfit gun owner was in fact a dangerous unfit gun owner puts him in your corner, Kurt, not mine. It's been my longstanding position that criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners are first cousins of sorts. Of course, you don't really qualify for the second category, do you Kurt which would make you, what, a step brother maybe?
DeleteThe most significant thing about this guy is that he shot up the downtown area of a fairly sizable city--that's the only thing likely to be remembered about him.
DeleteI've done nothing of the sort, and will continue to do nothing of the sort.
As for this bizarre notion of me being a "dangerous unfit gun owner," I've posed no danger to anyone, and will continue to pose no danger to anyone who poses no threat to me, and I have never displayed any behavior that would indicate "unfitness" to own guns.
Here we see the dangers of may-issue policies. When someone like MikeB is given the power they will deny people their rights based on personal differences and political grudges.
DeleteYou have stated you would take arms against the government simply because you disagree with their laws, rejecting the legal process. That makes you not only criminal, but dangerous.
Delete2I have never displayed any behavior that would indicate "unfitness" to own guns."
DeleteAnonymous is right about you, Kurt. Your "bad laws be damned" mentality makes you an unfit gun owner.
Your "bad laws be damned" mentality makes you an unfit gun owner.
DeleteThis, from the guy who defended his claim that illegal immigrants "break no laws," because they "only" break the law against being a foreign invader:
I'm talking about those illegals who break NO OTHER LAWS besides the immigration ones.
See, Mikeb--by your definition, I am "law abiding," because I "break NO OTHER LAWS besides" gun ones.
And let us remember, as well, Mikeb, that you yourself have suggested that museums in Washington should break a gun law--a gun law, incidentally, which has drawn your effusive praise.
DeleteIn other words, you seem to be open, in certain situations, to the philosophy of "good laws be damned."
As your fantasy world crumbles, you more frequently respond with double, triple and even quadruple answers. Have you noticed that.
DeleteWhat I said about the Washington museum is the new law didn't apply to them, just like it doesn't apply to someone showing a gun to another in the privacy of their home or someone briefly storing a gun in another's safe.
As far as illegal immigrants ALL being criminals even those who break no laws other than the immigration ones, well you could judge everyone who drives a car that harshly if you like. Who has never driven over the speed limit even once?
But honest and reasonable people know what we're talking about when we talk about hard-working illegal aliens being law-abiding citizens. Only people who like to make every discussion as difficult as possible question this. That's your big victory, Kurt.
As your fantasy world crumbles . . .
DeleteSince I lack one of those, it seems to have "crumbled" a very long time ago--beyond the reach of my long term memory.
. . . you more frequently respond with double, triple and even quadruple answers.
14 hours and 10 minutes after one comment, I thought of another on the same subject--you're really reaching here, and getting nothing for your effort.
Have you noticed that.
Got a problem with question marks, now?
Before you try to use this additional comment as "evidence" of my growing inability to resist making multiple comments, I made the first comment right away, but had to hold off on this one until I had some time to look up the text of the Washington law, etc.
DeleteWhat I said about the Washington museum is the new law didn't apply to them . . .
How could the law fail to apply to the museum? The law explicitly defines "transfers," and that definition includes loans:
Transfer means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.
And don't try to tell me that it's cool, because a museum is not a "person"--the gun still has to go into the control of another person, and that's a "transfer."
There are exemptions in the law, but the word "museum" is not to be found among them. The text also has not a word about exemptions for the other kinds of transfers you've described.
Who has never driven over the speed limit even once?
I have no idea, but to say that "everyone who drives, speeds at some point" is to make an assumption of guilt--it's to presume guilt pending proof of innocence. Illegal immigrants have by definition broken the law. They are by definition criminals. Besides, invading a sovereign nation in defiance of that nation's laws is rather more serious than driving 60 mph in a 55 mph zone.
But forget about all that--I'll pretend for the purpose of this discussion that it makes sense to say that violators of immigration laws violate no laws. But if I do that, I also get to pretend that violators of gun laws violate no laws.
MikeB: "What I said about the Washington museum is the new law didn't apply to them, just like it doesn't apply to someone showing a gun to another in the privacy of their home or someone briefly storing a gun in another's safe."
DeleteNo, you called us whiny babies that $400 isn't a lot of money. You even titled the post "Washington museum finds a solution". A solution to what (if there is no problem for them)?
And are you seriously thinking the law wouldn't apply to friends storing other friends guns for them? Do you realize what a gaping loophole that would be? "Oh no, I didn't sell him the gun. He's just storing it for me ...and I'm storing $600 for him. " I thought you guys hate loopholes? Or is it that you love them because then you get to cry about it and ask for more laws?
Every arsonist I know shoots off a hundred rounds before he lights the match. No anomaly there.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
"Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good, but maybe Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson was both lucky and good to take down a rifle-armed man who attacked the Austin Police Department, the Mexican Consulate, and a federal courthouse with more than 200 shots fired. Sgt. Johnson was about to stable two police horses when he heard the volley of shots and walked out onto the street, still holding the reins of the two horses in one hand.
ReplyDeleteHe drew and fired one shot, stronghand only, that dropped a homicidal madman 104 yards away."
http://bearingarms.com/austin-mounted-police-officer-dropped-homegrown-terrorist-312-feet-one-shot/
Now that is some shooting....
Damn--that is impressive.
Delete