world

FBI says it interviewed FedEx mass shooter last year

73 Comments
By CASEY SMITH and RICK CALLAHAN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

73 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

My guess is that this was one of those lone wolf shooters. Such a terrible situation.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yet he had access to an automatic weapon capable of killing 8 and wounding 7 people in 2 minutes!!!!

Pathetic.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Police confirmed he had a rifle and sounds like another AR type semi auto

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Biden said. "This has to end. It's a national embarrassment."

this statement also applies to Biden’s own Presidency plus the inability of the FBI to actually do their job. Nearly every time the FBI has interacted with the shooter or been warned.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

If only someone in the parking lot was exercising their constitutional right to carry their weapon, this would have ended so much quicker.

Nearly every time the FBI has interacted with the shooter or been warned.

They took his gun. You can't punish someone for something they MIGHT do.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

But liberals want to take guns from law abiding citizens too. Not even for what I might do- but for what someone ELSE might.

Isn’t that punishment for what someone MIGHT do?

You can't punish someone for something they MIGHT do.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Liberals do not want to take away your guns just introduce better gun laws and controls.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Isn’t that punishment for what someone MIGHT do?

great point, I was only thinking about individuals. I say that it also removes someones right to defend themselves. Luckily what liberals want and what they get are mostly different.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

But liberals want to take guns from law abiding citizens too. Not even for what I might do- but for what someone ELSE might. 

Isn’t that punishment for what someone MIGHT do?

No, it isn’t punishment for what someone might do because liberals don’t want to take guns from law abiding citizens.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

> If only someone in the parking lot was exercising their constitutional right to carry their weapon, this would have ended so much quicker. 

Pure speculation.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

But liberals want to take guns from law abiding citizens too.

How does this happen exactly?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Quoting the candidate's past comment about selling back AR-15s and AK-47s, moderator David Muir asked O'Rourke: "Are you proposing taking away their guns? And how would this work?"

O'Rourke answered, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

If only someone in the parking lot was exercising their constitutional right to carry*

There was if I remember correctly. And it didn't stop this shooter. Also it didn't help in the Orlando Pulse shooting with armed security there. Yes maybe armed and ready with mounted mini guns? Maybe they can be manned at every school, warehouse, and mall entrance with highly paid personnel? Ok that might work

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Where was the good guy with a gun?

Absent yet again.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Restricting the types of weapons isn't taking your guns away.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

nishikat: How does this happen exactly?

My understanding, as learned from gun supporters, is that a Democrat gets elected and signs a piece of paper and guns are then banned.

That's why it's important to stock up on weapons and ammo after a shooting, or, anytime a Democrat mentions the word "gun."

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The FBI says that last year it questioned the man who fatally shot eight people at a FedEx plant in Indianapolis. Paul Keenan, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Indianapolis field office, said Friday that agents questioned 19-year-old Brandon Scott Hole after his mother called police to say that her son might commit “suicide by cop.”

And the gun zealots and their Repub cronies all think this clearly disturbed individual ought to have the right to have an arsenal in his bedroom...

Pure, utter craziness...

They worship their guns above all else...

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Those are types of guns. They would be taken away from lawful owners.

when I already lawfully have something and I can’t have it any more you have in fact taken it away.

its literally what that term “take away”exists in our language to describe.

Restricting the types of weapons isn't taking your guns away.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

There was if I remember correctly

1 guy had a gun in his truck, but he had to run and go get it. If he had it on him, different story.

Restricting the types of weapons isn't taking your guns away.

What if i want those weapons?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

People can continue to own legal guns if they want. But would require law changes unlikely to happen. So people will continue to get guns, legal and illegal ones and continue with mass shootings.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Someone fantasized that adding another active shooter to the scene before the police showed up would have solved it, without asking themselves what the probable reaction of the cops arriving on scene to the sight of a foreign looking guy shooting at a White man.

Hint, I'd take either side of a straight bet on whether they'd fire through the glass of their car, or pop the door open enough to shoot through the gap. You'd have to offer pretty big odds to get me to bet they'd wait until their feet were on the ground before blowing the 'foreigner' away.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

richardpearce,

right, because no training exists about how to act when your the good guy with a gun when the cops arrive smh. Here's some for free: stand on your gun if you cant reholster, hands visible and up, be instantly obediant. Accidents happen, sure. But what you supposed to do? Watch as someone blows away your friends and coworkers?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

also, if your any good you'll have the situation long before the cops arrive. when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

O'Rourke answered, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

One liberal represents all liberals. Got it. Makes sense.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

also, if your any good you'll have the situation long before the cops arrive. when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes.

This is the crux of the issue with the “good guy with a gun” argument. That person needs to have training and continue to train to be “any good” at stopping a bad guy with a gun. Most people don’t have this training or continue it with a frequency that would allow them to act in a manner that didn’t exacerbate the situation.

That said, more firearms is definitely the way to solve the firearms issue in the US. Just like more cocaine is the way to solve the cocaine problem in the US. Can’t you all see the logic?!

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Biden Says Beto O’Rourke Will ‘Take Care of the Gun Problem with Me’

“I want to make something clear: I’m going to guarantee you this in not the last you’re seeing of this guy,” Biden said to a crowd in Dallas. “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on you.

The liberal who the president agrees with so much he’s going to have him lead the effort.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

right, because no training exists about how to act when your the good guy with a gun

Or just wear a t-shirt saying that you're a good guy with a gun. It helps when you are in a situation where the cops see you before you see them.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

There's a reason Putin and Xi use their information warriors to parrot the gun zealots 2nd Amendment narrative that every living (and dead) American, no matter what age, no matter what mental state, no matter what former criminal background, has the right to own as many guns as they want...

Americans will kill themselves - no need to send any of their troops....

Guns are the only thing that give these scared, physically insecure, helpless individuals any sense of power...

7 ( +7 / -0 )

guy had a gun in his truck, but he had to run and go get it. If he had it on him, different story.

And Orlando Pulse? There was qualified law enforcement as security fully armed and what happened? 50 people killed

7 ( +7 / -0 )

This is not the end, and won't be until the terrified politicians do something other than talk.

O'Rourke answered, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Good, take them and ban the terrorist NRA.

Also, Japan must ban members of the death cult from coming into the country.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

That person needs to have training and continue to train to be “any good” at stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Yes. And most people prepared to get a CC permit and use their gun when necessary will have that training. Think Jack Wilson, the Texas church goer who stopped an active shooter in seconds.

That said, more firearms is definitely the way to solve the firearms issue in the US. Just like more cocaine is the way to solve the cocaine problem in the US. Can’t you all see the logic?

Well crime has been dropping overall since early 90s as the amount of guns increased so..

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

And Orlando Pulse? There was qualified law enforcement as security fully armed and what happened? 50 people killed

Christchurch mosques? no armed security, no armed good guys, 51 people killed.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Another day, another mass shooting in the United States of America.

The American way.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Or just wear a t-shirt saying that you're a good guy with a gun. It helps when you are in a situation where the cops see you before you see them.

You cherry picked your quote there. i demonstrated ways to be visible and reduce your appearance as a threat

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Remember Jemel Roberson?

A security guard who subdued the shooter and was then shot by the cops?

Stop making excuses for the gun culture in the US.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

You cherry picked your quote there. i demonstrated ways to be visible and reduce your appearance as a threat

America has more guns per capita than any other developed country. It's high time the good guys with guns grow a pair and do their job. Where am I wrong?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

What if i want those weapons?

To be fair, you're in Japan, now. That selfish part of American culture is not really welcome.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes. And most people prepared to get a CC permit and use their gun when necessary will have that training.

Pure speculation. Not to mention the states that require zero training or a license to conceal carry. Even in the states that require a license, the training is only required to get the license, not keep it.

One day of training with a firearm does not make one capable of safely using the firearm in an active shooter scenario. Police and the military constantly train for these scenarios, and even they make mistakes.

Think Jack Wilson, the Texas church goer who stopped an active shooter in seconds.

This Jack Wilson:

*Shortly after the shooting, Wilson told the local NBC affiliate that members of the security team had conducted extensive target practice in different situations — shooting at stationary paper targets while walking.*

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/918185532/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-church-security-guard-who-killed-gunman-in-texas

?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Those are types of guns. They would be taken away from lawful owners.

If those weapons were banned, there would be no lawful owners.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

As it would it be if anything you currently lawfully own were proposed to be “banned”

thus “liberals want to take away your guns” is accurate once I hear you propose to ban anything categorized as a “gun”.

it’s pretty simple to understand absent any word games.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Where are the good guys with guns? Statistically there should be millions of them in the US. Far more than police officers. Why don’t they step up? Is it because they don’t exist?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

America has more guns per capita than any other developed country. It's high time the good guys with guns grow a pair and do their job. Where am I wrong?

Where are the good guys with guns? Statistically there should be millions of them in the US. Far more than police officers. Why don’t they step up? Is it because they don’t exist?

Guns are used defensively in the US between 500,000 and two million times a year. Gun deaths except suicides are lower than 20, 000.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Christchurch mosques? no armed security, no armed good guys, 51 people killed.

How about gun ownership in Japan?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Pure speculation..One day of training with a firearm does not make one capable of safely using the firearm in an active shooter scenario. 

Speaking for all gun owners? How does that track with:

One liberal represents all liberals. Got it. Makes sense.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Without decisive gun law changes, the tragic events of mass shootings will continue to happen. Biden's recent proposals are only like popping a pimple.

The majority of gun owners, who are mainly white male republicans will resist any gun law changes.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If people think gun laws are not necessary or don't work, compare Japan and America for gunshot homicide.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

ulyssesToday  08:06 am JST

Yet he had access to an automatic weapon capable of killing 8 and wounding 7 people in 2 minutes!!!!

Pathetic.

I hope this isn't twisted up and used as an excuse to bashing the Sikhs. Gun violence is gun violence and mass murder is mass murder and enough is enough.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Guns are used defensively in the US between 500,000 and two million times a year. 

Quite a wide range there. Sounds legit.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Good thing Dems fully control Congress and the Presidency so that they can finally pass these laws while no one can stop them.

Governing is hard.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Quite a wide range there. Sounds legit.

Different sources, different methodologies. Even the lowest number is much higher than the number of gun deaths.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hey Trump NRA 2A people. Should teens (I mean ones under 18) be allowed to carry? Because some of the soldiers who fought the evil British in the American Revolution were teens, so isn't that fair?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

SophiaHernandez: Yes. And most people prepared to get a CC permit and use their gun when necessary will have that training. Think Jack Wilson, the Texas church goer who stopped an active shooter in seconds.

I need more than, "turn everyone into Jack Wilson" as a policy. And it's just strange the society that you're imagining. We're all armed and trained to kill each other? Why not just use the Army and position one soldier with an assault rifle at every church, store, restaurant, mall, amusements park, movie theater, etc.? Seems more efficient with better training.

You cherry picked your quote there. i demonstrated ways to be visible and reduce your appearance as a threat

I'm cherry picking? By saying a cop might see you first? I think your situation is much more unlikely. You need the cops to see you first, then throw down your gun. Which assumes the bad guy doesn't shoot you in the head after you drop it. Everything needs to go according to plan every time for your numbers to work, otherwise start including accidental deaths and mistakes in your net numbers.

Also include deaths due to crimes of passion, which would surely rise, death from kids finding guns, road rage, spousal abuse, increased suicides, etc.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

thus “liberals want to take away your guns” is accurate once I hear you propose to ban anything categorized as a “gun”.

Too bad for you that nobody is proposing banning anything categorized as a gun. You sure love arguing with yourself.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Speaking for all gun owners? How does that track with:

If you had bothered to read and comprehend my entire post, you wouldn’t be asking this question.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Different sources, different methodologies. Even the lowest number is much higher than the number of gun deaths.

If your statistical data basically comes down to ‘a number between 1 and 4’ it’d be more honest to say “I don’t know”.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Guns are used defensively in the US between 500,000 and two million times a year. Gun deaths except suicides are lower than 20, 000.

Cites?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

P. Smith

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

So 3 million. My bad, i said 2.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. 

And according to the NRA it would be even more if children were allowed to carry guns. Often children are playing without adults around and they need protection too...this includes armed children patrolling in school halls.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If your statistical data basically comes down to ‘a number between 1 and 4’ it’d be more honest to say “I don’t know”.

Well, it's per year. You expect the same number every year? also, statista.com will tell you there were 12 mass shootings in 2018, while wikipedia, using various definitions, has 323. quite a range. lets just say we dont know how many shootings there were in 2018.

List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2018

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I'm all in for gun control if it means getting the illegal guns off the streets of say, Chicago which has a lot of homicides.

I'd also be all for banning rioting and looting and burning throwing bricks, etc.

I know, I know. Down-vote me...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You expect the same number every year?

It would be even more if children could have CCP. The 2A says ".....shall not be infringed" and children have rights too.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

lets just say we dont know how many shootings there were in 2018.

According to the NRA crimes against children would go down considably if children could arm themselves.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You need the cops to see you first, then throw down your gun. Which assumes the bad guy doesn't shoot you in the head after you drop it. Everything needs to go according to plan every time for your numbers to work, otherwise start including accidental deaths and mistakes in your net numbers

youre assuming the cops will just show up and start shooting, even with no shots being fired. how many times do you think police have showed up after a threat was subdued and then just shot every one? at homes, schools, shops ...

if that were the case no actual shooters would ever be taken into custody, thry'd all just be dead.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

youre assuming the cops will just show up and start shooting

That's right and if there are children playing in the playground with no adults (like I did in my childhood) and someone attacks me then I need to shoot the attacker because there is no time to wait for my dad or the cops to take out the armed attacker. That is why the NRA is pushing for this

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Pure speculation. Not to mention the states that require zero training or a license to conceal carry. Even in the states that require a license, the training is only required to get the license, not keep it.

With concealed carriers this attitude:

"Veterans should be the first in line to acquire training to help them develop as responsible concealed carriers. At a minimum training on local laws, managing unknown contacts, marksmanship in the context of a dynamic critical incident and post incident actions should be acquired. Veterans should not use their honorable service as a trump card to avoid training, putting themselves and others at risk."

is more likely.

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/veterans-and-concealed-carry-how-important-is-training/#

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

At a minimum training on local laws, managing unknown contacts, marksmanship in the context of a dynamic critical incident and post incident actions should be acquired. Veterans should not use their honorable service as a trump card to avoid training, putting themselves and others at risk."

And who pays for all this? Training doesn't grow on trees

And again what about training children to be safe in the playground? Adults cannot be around all the time.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

nishikat,

That's right and if there are children playing in the playground with no adults (like I did in my childhood) and someone attacks me then I need to shoot the attacker because there is no time to wait for my dad or the cops to take out the armed attacker. 

Are you saying kids have never used guns to defend themselves?

" Son disarms intruding sex offender and shoots intruder with his own gun"

"17-year old boy shoots, kills man attacking father with wood saw"

"13 yr old Girl Uses Rifle to Save Sister and Self from Intruders"

https://lawnews.tv/examples-of-kids-using-guns-to-defend-themselves/

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Are you saying kids have never used guns to defend themselves?

Shouldn't kids be allowed to carry just like adults? Imagine if they were allowed to be armed in the school halls they could defend themselves against mass shooters. I'm not talking about grabbing Daddy's gun in the house.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

And who pays for all this? 

new argument now? how about responding to the first one?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" Son disarms intruding sex offender and shoots intruder with his own gun"

No I'm talking about shooting the intruder with their own gun that they are allowed to own and carry

2 ( +2 / -0 )

how about responding to the first one?

Ok then it is agreed that children should be allowed to carry just like adults

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nishikat: And who pays for all this? 

SophiaHernandez: new argument now? how about responding to the first one?

I was actually curious about this myself. It's not a new argument, it's just trying to understand the logistics of your original argument.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No I'm talking about shooting the intruder with their own gun that they are allowed to own and carry

"There is no minimum age for possession of a long gun under federal law. However, those under 18 are prohibited from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition, except if doing so in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related activities, for target practice, hunting, or during the course of instruction in the "safe and lawful use of a handgun."

Kids are allowed to own long guns, and handguns under special circumstances.

No I'm talking about shooting the intruder with their own gun that they are allowed to own and carry

Kyle Rittenhouse protected himself against 3 attackers with his own gun. my link has other examples.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites