Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 08, 2019

The El Paso shooting suspect's mother called the Allen, Texas, Police Department weeks before the shooting because she was concerned about her son owning an "AK" type firearm, lawyers for the family confirmed to CNN. During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gosh, if only there were some reasonable set of parameters we could implement prior to allowing angry incels to buy weapons of mass killing.

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-08 05:09 PM | Reply

His mother never gave her name, or his and she didn't express concern that he might shoot somebody.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-08 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sounds like the best background check is to ask a buyer's mother if they ought to be allowed to buy a gun.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-08 05:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2 Police never asked for it either. See a problem?

#4 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-08 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think the police simply reflected reality: Just because someone is crazy is not at all a good enough reason to take their guns away.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-08 05:32 PM | Reply

she didn't express concern that he might shoot somebody.

That level of disingenuousness is bad even for you, Jeff. What do you think the mother's concern was when she "worried about his age, maturity level and lack of experience?" That he might do what, exactly?

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-08 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

That level of disingenuousness is bad even for you, Jeff. What do you think the mother's concern was when she "worried about his age, maturity level and lack of experience?" That he might do what, exactly?

#6 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-08-08 05:34 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Par for the course these days.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-08 05:36 PM | Reply

"she didn't express concern that he might shoot somebody."

That's like saying when I said "hey, you're too drunk to drive" I didn't express concern you might kill someone.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-08 05:39 PM | Reply

Joe,

The mother contacted police because she was worried about her son owning the weapon given his age, maturity level and lack of experience handling such a firearm, attorneys Chris Ayres and R. Jack Ayres said.
During the call, the mother was transferred to a public safety officer who told her that -- based on her description of the situation -- her son, 21, was legally allowed to purchase the weapon, the attorneys said. The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, [snip]

According to the family's attorneys, the mother's inquiry was "informational" in nature and was not motivated out of a concern that her son posed a threat to anybody.

"This was not a volatile, explosive, erratic behaving kid," said Chris Ayres. "It's not like alarm bells were going off."

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-08 06:12 PM | Reply

"It's not like alarm bells were going off."

When someone's mom calls to express concern her son shouldn't have guns, and no and alarm bells go off, it's because there are no alarm bells to begin with.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-08 06:20 PM | Reply

"This was not a volatile, explosive, erratic behaving kid," said Chris Ayres. "It's not like alarm bells were going off."

----

That's a scary thought especially when I hear gun people say more people with guns is the answer.

#11 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-08-08 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That's a scary thought especially when I hear gun people say more people with guns is the answer.

#11 | POSTED BY PIRATE AT 2019-08-08 06:43 PM | FLAG:

You've hit the nail on the head. JeffJ is correct as far as the law is concerned. But you are correct in identifying the quandary we're all in.

All the talk about background checks and mental illness is irrelevant in this shooter's case. He had no record, he had not been diagnosed mentally ill, and he hadn't threatened anyone in the public sphere. So America says, "Here's your AK-47, son. Enjoy your freedom."

And up until midday Saturday, this shooter would have to be considered a "good guy with a gun."

#12 | Posted by cbob at 2019-08-08 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

" 'she didn't express concern that he might shoot somebody.'

That level of disingenuousness is bad even for you, Jeff. What do you think the mother's concern was when she "worried about his age, maturity level and lack of experience?" That he might do what, exactly?
#6 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-08-08 05:34 PM"

Ease up on JEFFJ, JOE.

Who knows? Her son might have been planning to go fishing, so they just exhibited the same level of concern as if he'd bought a case a dynamite. /sarc

#13 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-08-09 07:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The mother did not provide her name or her son's name, and police did not seek any additional information from her before the call concluded, they added."

Sounds to me that the "public servants" were too lazy to do their job protecting the public.

#14 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-09 08:13 AM | Reply

Is this the same mother that called police about her son was going to date a MAGA-hat wearing girl that drivers a fast car and loves to text and take pictures of herself from orbit in skimpy tops?

#15 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-09 08:29 AM | Reply

This is one of the problems: Cops, FBI, etc. probably get hundreds of calls a day about suspicious people. But they can''t do anything about it because that person has done nothing wrong. But the next day they will. How are the cops supposed to know that, however.

People love to blame the 2nd amendment. I think the 4th amendment is just as much at fault. If the cops in Allen (next town north of my hometown of Plano) weren't constrained by 4th amendment rights, they could break down any door and search any home. Sure, a lot of these types of searches would produce nothing. Likewise the vast majority of gun howners protected by the 2nd amendment will never do anything wrong with their guns

If someone is willing to suspend the 2nd amendment to stop gun violence, they better be ready to suspend the 4th amendment as well.

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-09 08:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

11 times a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, saving lives

With tragic events such as the shooting of a bible study group at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, the stories of heroic self defense and lives saved by legal gun owners are often overlooked. Here are just a few stories of law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves against criminals.

www.washingtontimes.com

Bad guys can easily bypass background checks... by buying a gun between individuals, Purchasing one from a criminal, or Simply stealing from a gin store or a house robbery.

A background check has never stopped a mass shooting. Never... amazing how people can fool themselves into thinking they are safe.

The real problem here is WalMart. They should have started arming their security guards and start offering training...

why didn't they... just being cheap. That's the value Corporate America places on your life...

#17 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-09 10:00 AM | Reply

"A background check has never stopped a mass shooting. Never... amazing how people can fool themselves into thinking they are safe."

Because people who know they can't pass a background check have many other options if they want to obtain a gun. Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

#18 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-08-09 10:04 AM | Reply

gin store?

yea I go there for a gin and tonic, they also have a nice selection of handguns and ammo... no better way to shop.

Gun stores? Nah, they mostly carry t shirts and perfume now a days.

#19 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-09 10:04 AM | Reply

THe problem with background checks is that they are absurdly stringent and unfair. When I was about 55 ears old I tried to buy a gun at a gun show. The ten minute background check came back and said I couldn't. I had no idea why. The gun dealer gave me a number to call to get the details.

Ended up the reason I couldnt buy a gun is because I was busted in High School for a seed in my car. ONE seed!..I wasn't even eonviced of anything because the judge said it was absurd and actually chastised the cop in the courtroom.

So in general, I am cool with background checks as long as they are fair. Mine certainly wasn't.

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-09 10:10 AM | Reply

Trivial oversight compared to 9-11, when numerous earnings fell through the cracks, with Bush and the FBI.

#21 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-08-09 10:35 AM | Reply

9-11, when numerous warnings fell through the cracks, with Bush and the FBI.

Government Fail

El Paso shooter legally passed background check and got a gun.

Government Fail

Shooter's mom called Allen police and ask for help... they provided none.

Government Fail

Anyone see a pattern...? Trivial oversight.... yep...dats it!

#22 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-09 10:50 AM | Reply

Voters keep choosing the wrong candidate.

Government Fail

#23 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-09 11:34 AM | Reply

If someone is willing to suspend the 2nd amendment to stop gun violence, they better be ready to suspend the 4th amendment as well.

If assault weapons are declared unlawful, and someone calls the police saying somebody has one, police can already execute a stop and even an arrest without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Once again rightwing ---- exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the document they claim to worship.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-09 11:48 AM | Reply

Par for the course these days.

#7 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Sad but true.
Righties were so good at reading between the lines during the Obama years a dub over him speaking would be the inverse of a bad king -- movie dub-a lick of his lips was a three hundred page novel about the destruction of America.

Now, suddenly, anything short of an explicit statement means it did t happen.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-09 12:07 PM | Reply

You're asking us to prove a negative, dumbass. Background check laws have stopped millions of prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course you can't show the checks stopped a shooting - because the guy never got the gun in the first place. Here's what we do know:

In 2018, in Appleton, WI, a man who was prohibited from purchasing a gun because he was out on bond for a firearm-related felony domestic violence case purchased a firearm from an unlicensed seller on Armslist.com without a background check. The next day he used the gun to kill his wife.

In 2016, a woman was killed, and their two children shot by an ex-boyfriend, who purchased the gun from an unlicensed seller without a background check. He was prohibited from purchasing a firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order and a pending domestic battery case.

In 2014, a gunman in West Virginia killed four people, including his ex-girlfriend, with a gun he purchased from an online seller without a background check. He was prohibited from purchasing firearms due to multiple felony convictions.

lawcenter.giffords.org

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-09 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That was a response to #17, who said "A background check has never stopped a mass shooting"

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-09 01:34 PM | Reply

If someone is willing to suspend the 2nd amendment to stop gun violence, they better be ready to suspend the 4th amendment as well.
------
If assault weapons are declared unlawful, and someone calls the police saying somebody has one, police can already execute a stop and even an arrest without violating the Fourth Amendment.
Once again rightwing ---- exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the document they claim to worship.

#24 | POSTED BY JOE

Well, the comment you responded to wasn't made in the context of an assault weapon being unlawful. But, even in that context, what about someone who has a couple of rifles without the icky-plastic attachments that make them into "assault rifles" along with a shotgun and a couple of handguns?

The point he was making is if the gun in possession is legal to own, then how do we expect law enforcement to take preemptive action against a would-be shooter if he passed the background checks, purchased the weapons legally, didn't have a record or any kind of history of mental illness?

This isn't nearly as easy as people make it sound.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-09 01:59 PM | Reply

Did the bloated------------ sign the gun before it was shipped to the NRA Hall Of Fame?

#29 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-08-09 03:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort