Texas Mass Murderer Was Deported THREE Times

Apparently local yokels had been called out by the family that got shot on this dude in particular more than once.
So **** ups all around.

 

it's pretty common-after there is a mass shooting that is not a murder suicide family meltdown or a gang rivalry, for all sorts of information to surface concerning interaction of the shooter with the constabulary

 

No, the laws are about "banning" an arbitrary, capricious and inconsistent list of some semiautomatic rifles but not other semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic handguns but not other semiautomatic handguns, and some semiautomatic shotguns but not other semiautomatic shotguns. Nothing prevents any type of firearm from being added to the list to be banned as an "assault weapon".

The first semiautomatic rifle in the US was made in 1903, in .22 LR. It wasn't designed as military rifle. The first semiautomatic centerfire rifle in the US, equipped with a box magazine that held up to 15 rounds was the Remington Model 8 It was designed for hunting. The .224 caliber bullet was first used in the .220 Swift, in 1935, for hunting.
The .223 Remington was based on the .222 Remington, a hunting cartridge. The Remington model 760, a hunting rifle, chambered in .223 Remington, was sold to civilians before the M16 was used by the US military. The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the DELVIGNE PATENT carbine made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840. The bullet design was invented in 1898 and adopted by the US for its service rifles in 1925.
There is nothing unique to the AR-15, other than the bayonet lug, that wasn't used in a hunting rifle before ever being used in an M16 or AR-15. Show that a bayonet on an AR-15 was used to kill more than five people in the last 55 years and I’ll give up the bayonet lug.

The majority of mass shooters, regardless of how you define mass shooting, use handguns.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2021


"Francisco Oropeza, 38, the subject of a manhunt who police say shot dead five neighbors, including an 8-year-old boy, after some of them had asked him to stop shooting a semiautomatic rifle in his Cleveland, Texas front yard..."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/manhunt-c...ion-style-shooting-killed-5/story?id=98968745

 

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to try to save lives?

 

Your historical firearm knowledge, does not prove your point, that the AR-15, is nothing new. What were the firing rates, of those other guns, you list, and their bullet velocities? There was a gun, comparable to the AR-15, in 1903-- do tell.

Chicken Little arguments, are not legitimate concerns of law. You can say, that there is nothing to stop the government from banning bananas, because they might be mistaken for guns; but without an example of some such instance, that is just called, being an alarmist. Your argument here, is against a law, because of what you fear it might change into being, but you have no examples of that change-- only your fear. Would you have been happier, if all semi-automatic guns were on the list? That they are not, shows not that the list is arbitrary, but that some discretion is being employed. So your objection comes down to only your either not understanding the criteria for making the discrimination, or differing in your own idea about what those specifics should be. Neither of these, is an argument against the law's existence.

Your snip, from the link, is outdated. IOW, that was early, erroneous reporting. I just revisited the story, via your link, and they have updated the information:

<Snip>
The neighbors had asked the suspect to stop shooting his gun in the front yard because there was a baby trying to sleep, Capers told ABC Houston station KTRK
<End>

 

Semiautomatic firearms have about the same firing rates - how fast can you pull the trigger and remain accurate. You also have this misplaced view on velocity. No proposed AWB mentions velocity limits at all, and it's energy at impact that counts. Velocity is part of that equation, but so is mass. The bog standard .223 Remington 55 grain M193 round has a muzzle energy of 1265 ft-lbs, or 1,715 Joules. The .351 Remington that the 1905 Remington Model 8 was available in has a muzzle energy ranging from 1,800 ft-lbs (2,400 Joules) to 1,929 ft-lbs (2,615 Joules).

Perhaps surprisingly, the AR series of rifles is available in over 100 calibers including most pistol calibers and in rimfire calibers. All of these are significantly slower and have less energy than the .223 Remington (.45 ACP - 356 ft-lbs, 483 Joules, 155 gr 9mm with very similar numbers). Even the rifle cartridge .300 Blackout in 220 grain only has around 500 ft-lbs of energy.

All of these would be classified as "assault weapons" in exactly the same way as an AR-15 in .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO would.

The only argument needed against the law's existence is that it bans classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. But let's look at the history of the banning of the AR-15.

"The semi-automatic weapon's menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully auto-matic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-any- thing that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Josh Sugarmann ~ September 1988

The first federal "assault weapons" "ban" was the result of the passing of H.R.4296 in the 103rd session of Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/4296/text


The bill "banned" some semiautomatic rifles but not other semiautomatic rifles, some semiautomatic handguns but not other semiautomatic handguns, and some semiautomatic shotguns but not other semiautomatic shotguns.

The AR-15 was on the "banned" list but the Ruger Mini-14, firing the exact same round and using 30 round magazines, was not. Through 1994 (and through 2012, actually) an AR-15 had never been used in a mass shooting. The Mini-14 had been used in a mass shooting.
A semiautomatic pistol with a threaded barrel was on the "banned" list but a semiautomatic pistol with a standard barrel was not. Through 1994 no semiautomatic pistol wtih a threaded barrel had been used in a mass shooting. semiautomatic pistols without threaded barrels had been used in mass shootings.
A semiautomatic a pistol grip was on the "banned" list but a pump action shotgun was not. No semiautomatic shotgun had been used in a mass shooting, but Mother Jones shows at least 5 mass shootings prior to 1994 where a pump shotgun was used.

I don't think anyone can come up with the logic for the criteria used by the writers of the 1994 ban, and every ban since is a near copy of the original, except they've changed the allowable number of evil features like a pistol grip or flash hider from one to zero.

I say "near copy", as there are some variations. The federal bills have remained unchanged since 2013, but the federal definition differs from California's, which differs from New York's which differs from Maryland. In Maryland, the rifle picture below is not an "assault weapon", as the state has found that it has legitimate sporting purposes.



In regards to what I feel might change, the 132nd session of the General Assembly introduced their AWB, SB260, which included a change to the normal wording that any semiautomatic weapon capable of accepting a large capacity magazine would be defined as an "assault weapon". The .380 Glock 42 subcompact handgun comes standard with a 6 round magazine, but because the ETS company sells an aftermarket 11 round magazine for the Glock 42 it would become an "assault weapon". Likewise, the 110+ year old M1911A1 .45 ACP would be classified as an "assault weapon", as 11+ round magazines are available. The owner of these example firearms doesn't even have to own any LCMs for the pistols; the mere fact that they exist turns these common handguns into banned weapons.

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_132/bills/sb260/IN/00?format=pdf

In the 80th regular session of the Oregon legislature Democrats introduced a bill to limit magazine capacity to 5 rounds, and made magazines holding more than 5 rounds into "large capacity magazines". This law, combined with the wording from SB260, would ban virtually all semiautomatic firearms as "assault weapons", including the lowly Raven .25 ACP, chambered in possibly the weakest centerfire cartridge ever developed, because its magazine holds 6 rounds.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2019R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB501/Introduced

You know that this in no way contradicts what I posted. This doesn't say what kind of gun he was shooting in his front yard.

This does, though.

"Police said the suspect "has been known to shoot his .223 out in his front yard, which is evident by the shell casings that are laying in the front yard.""
https://abcnews.go.com/US/5-dead-texas-shooting-suspect-armed-ar-15/story?id=98957271

 

One of these rounds is fired by the AR15.
It shatters bone, liquefies organs, and vaporizes children.

The other is one of the most popular hunting rounds in North America.

 

The contents of bills, introduced in Oregon's legislature, have no bearing, in a debate over a proposed federal law. That makes your argument, an irrelevant straw man.

Those are just points, within the proposal, which you bring to issue. IOW, there is no reason that clarifications could not be added, to address your concerns, of an overly expanding list, beyond the law's original intent.

No, that is a terrible misreading, on your part. Note the past tense, of the verb: has been known. That means, from past incidents. It does not mean that the shell casings were from that evening. Just to be clear, to any other readers, the .223 you cite, is a rifle, in the style of an AR-15 (according to various news sources: NPR; ABC; etc.), and the gun believed to have been used, in the shooting. I had cited a report that, on the night in question, when the suspect was asked to desist from firing his gun, in his yard, he had been shooting a handgun, and that he went into his home to get the rifle, before proceeding to the neighbor's house. That he had, on past occasions, fired the rifle in his yard, and hadn't picked up all the shell casings, is not evidence that my report, is wrong.

Since you find this statistic of enough significance, to bring it up-- let's look at the current number of mass shootings, in which the AR-15 has been used. Do you know how many? Like 50 or 60?


Lastly, this, to rebut your argument that I am just going to summarize as saying that the AR-15 is not more destructive, in its impact force, than past, popularly used firearms. This is from a 60 Minutes broadcast, that you can watch, if you like.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ar-15-mass-shootings-60-minutes-2022-05-29/

<Snip>
The mass murder last week at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has something in common with America's deadliest massacres - the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Variations of the AR-15 were used in this month's massacre at a Buffalo supermarket; at a Texas Walmart in 2019; a Florida high school in 2018; a Texas church and a Las Vegas concert in 2017; and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. The AR-15 style weapon is the most popular rifle in America with well over 11 million. And they are rarely used in crime. But, the AR-15 is the weapon of choice of the worst mass murderers. AR-15 ammunition travels up to three times the speed of sound. And as we first showed you in 2018, we're going to slow that down - so you can see why the AR-15's high velocity ammo is the fear of every american emergency room...



Cynthia Bir: Years of research have gone in to kind of what the makeup should be of this ordnance gelatin to really represent what damage you would see in your soft tissues.

Scott Pelley: So this is a pretty accurate representation of what would happen to a human being?

Cynthia Bir: Yeah, this is currently considered kind of the state of the art.


"Organs aren't just going to tear or have bruises on them, they're going to be, parts of them are going to be destroyed."
This is a 9-millimeter bullet from a handgun, which we captured in slow motion. The handgun bullet traveled about 800 miles an hour. It sliced nearly straight all the way through the gel.

Now look at the AR-15 round.

Cynthia Bir: See the difference?

Scott Pelley: Yes.

It's three times faster and struck with more than twice the force. The shockwave of the AR-15 bullet blasted a large cavity in the gel unlike the bullet from the handgun.


Scott Pelley: Wow. There's an enormous difference. You can see it right away.

Cynthia Bir: Yeah, exactly. There are fragments in here. There's, kind of took a curve and came out. You can see a much larger area in terms of the fractures that are inside.

Now watch from above. On top, the handgun, at bottom, the AR-15.

Scott Pelley: It's just exploded.

Cynthia Bir: It's exploded and it's tumbling. So what happens is, this particular round is designed to tumble and break apart.


The 9 mm handgun round has a larger bullet, but this AR-15 round has more gunpowder, accelerating its velocity. Both the round and the rifle were designed in the 1950's for the military. The result was the M16 for our troops and the AR-15 for civilians.

Cynthia Bir: There's going to be a lot more damage to the tissues, both bones, organs, whatever gets kind of even near this bullet path. The bones aren't going to just break, they're going to shatter. Organs aren't just going to tear or have bruises on them, they're going to be, parts of them are going to be destroyed.
<End Snip>

Hunting rifle?

Or you need this much killing potential, for self-defense? Who are you, Pablo Escobar?

 

According to Joe Biden a 9 mm round can blow the lungs clean out.

I would like the people above to explain what is so magically different about the average 223 AR-15 round compared to any other center fire rifle bullet.

The 223 round is banned for deer hunting in most States because it is considered underpowered and not reliable enough to cleanly bring down large game. All centerfire rifle rounds travel at a much greater velocity than any handgun. The 223 round is considered a varmint cartridge because of its lightweight projectile. I would like someone to ask people making that 60 minutes episode that if you have a 223 round traveling at a muzzle velocity of 3,000 ft per second and you have a larger heavier bullet doing the same exact speed..... What is the difference in terms of energy on impact?

This is straight from the game and fish authorities of most states telling you that this round is underpowered. I guess they didn't get the memo that it's some sort of devastating magical bullet.

 

It's hopeless. This poster has zero capability of understanding reality. He just takes what he reads as gospel.

You can't reason anyone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.

 

It seems clearly explained, in the snip-- though I also had seen the program, when it had aired; it illustrates things more dramatically, when you see the carnage it wreaks on those flesh- simulating, jelly molds. At the link, there is an option to "watch now,"-- EDIT: but this is a link to Paramount +, so I assume there will be a fee.

But looking at the description, in my snip, it explains that the handgun round goes straight through the mold. IOW, the round's full force is not all transferred into the target. The .223 round is designed to tumble; so instead of only contacting a small amount of flesh, and tearing through, it engages far more of the body, thereby transferring much more of its potential force, into that body.

 

Right, Rucker-- only you, & those who agree with you, understand reality. And your explanation of the effect, demonstrated on the 60 Minutes broadcast? None of those at the ballistics lab, at USC, I suppose, know anything, either?

 

the original spin on the M16 barrel with the M193 55 grain FMJ did cause the bullet to yaw when hitting a target. this has decreased significantly with the higher than optimal (mainly for tracer ammo) 1x7 that the military used with the SS109 and M855 62 grain bullets. Most of us who use 55 -68 grain bullets find a 1x8 or 1x9 is optimal-the 1x7 works best with those bullets over 70 grains-some of which do not feed well and are usually loaded singly for the extreme ranges of the 556 (600M)

 

The people who try to make the .223 varmint round out as some MOAB or killer bullet aren't people who understand firearms or have used firearms or field dressed deer shot with say a 30-06 soft tips or a 12 slug. They don't like guns, and they will make up stuff to make guns look bad. And people like us see it easily. but the average voter who gets their information by watching prime time TV might not

 

I'm quite familiar with ballistics gelatin testing. Of course a slower handgun round is going to be much less impressive than any center fire rifle round that is going generally at least twice as fast. Pistol rounds lack the hydrostatic shock characteristic of centerfire rifle rounds.

If you think a 223 round looks so devastating to a block of ballistics gelatin you should see what a 30-06 round would do to the same Target.

As far as centerfire rifle rounds are concerned the 223 is really not that impressive.

A thing that most hunters strive to achieve is for the bullet to cleanly pass in and out of the game.

While this means some of the kinetic energy is not dumped into the target, it also means that there are two holes instead of one meaning that the animal is going to bleed out much quicker because there is no vacuum. They specifically designed controlled expansion hunting ammunition to accomplish this..... Specifically in very large game like moose or elk. If you can't get much penetration you're not going to get the vital organs.

 

Did they test other centerfire rifle bullets? If they are only comparing the .223 to pistol bullets they are blowing smoke up your fourth point of contact.

I've loaded thousand of different kinds of .224 caliber bullets, from 53 grain Hornady VMAX to 77 grain Sierra Match Kings. I've loaded up to 168 grain Barnes TTSX bullets at 250 fps faster than the M193 fired from a typical AR-15. Those bullets stopped 600 lb elk in their tracks. The M193 wouldn't have been more than an irritation. They certainly are powerful enough to be legal to hunt elk with. Heck, in Colorado the .223 isn't powerful enough to be legal to hunt an 80 lb pronghorn doe. The FMJ-BT bullet type in any caliber isn't legal in most states for hunting.

The FMJ-BT used in the bog standard .223 Remington is the same bullet style previously used in the 7.62mm NATO used in the M14 and the .30-06 M2 ball used since 1928. The Spitzer boattail bullet was invented in 1898, used in the French Lebel 8mm rifle. There is nothing new about this bullet.

It's not even that fast. The .220 which uses the same diameter bullet (.220 Swift invented in 1935) was used in the 1950 era Army testing on smaller caliber rounds. It shoots about 650 fps faster than the .223 Remington, which was wildcatted from the .222 Remington varmint round just by stretching the case 1/10th of an inch to make sure it retained sufficient velocity at 500 yards to pierce a steel helmet.
M193 gel test.



.300 Win Mag gel test



See the difference?

 

BTW, the AR series of rifles in available in over 100 calibers, including most common hunting calibers, most target calibers and most pistol calibers. Do .308 hunting bullets somehow perform differently fired from an AR as opposed to being fired from a bolt action rifle?

Do pistol rounds gain magic powers when fired from an AR as opposed to a pistol?

 

Are we talking about what gun is best for hunting, or which one maximizes fatalities & serious injuries, in a mass shooting?

 

You mean the one where 86% if the victims who were shot survived in one shooting? We know that a combination of 9mm and .22LR is good for up to 32 fatalities.

Did the labbies look at victims if shootings where a 12 gauge was used?

You should worry about "in common use for lawful purposes". That's all that counts.

Should AR-15s not chambered in .223 be protected?

 

The human body and the body of an animal are very similar. If the object of hunting is to quickly kill an animal why would it be any different than killing a human which after all is only another mammal?

Bullets kill in several different ways. A handgun round will leave a permanent wound channel as big around as the bullet upon entry and upon exit it's only going to be as large as that bullet was able to expand in diameter to. So putting a hole through you that you could bleed out is one way it could kill you. Hitting vital organs is certainly another way.

Now when you are talking about rifle rounds in addition to having the permanent wound cavity, you now have hydrostatic shock which is a result of the extremely high velocities in a rifle round.

As you can see in the ballistics gelatin, hydrostatic shock causes a temporary wound cavity that is much larger than the permanent wound cavity. This results in tearing of the tissue affected by it.

That will also contribute to a more lethal round.

And last but not least bullets can also kill by the kinetic energy imparted to the Target. If the bullet remains in the Target then it has obviously dumped all of its potential kinetic energy.

A pistol bullet can kill you just as dead as a rifle round.

My point is, despite the hysterical misinformation coming from the anti-gun side... The 223 round is not some magically deadly bullet possessing some Superior powers over heavier and faster rounds fired from a rifle.

And it is also worth mentioning that while the 223 platform is the most common, the AR-15 can and often is, chambered in a variety of calibers.

 

So for the record, on understanding firearms:
Does the FBI?

<Snip>
FBI Special Agent Robert Jones: This is the most horrific scene I've seen in 22 years with the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Members of the Tree of Life Synagogue conducting a peaceful service in their place of worship were brutally murdered by a gunman targeting them simply because of their faith.
<End>

Apparently, the answer is no, the FBI does not understand firearms, according to Turtledude.

How about an assistant Fire Chief-- in Texas-- who has likely seen more than his share of gunshot victims?

<Snip>
Just 11 months before, it was a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Assistant fire chief Rusty Duncan was among the first to arrive.

Rusty Duncan: 90 percent of the people in there were unrecognizable. You know the blood everywhere, I mean it just covered them from head to toe. They were shot in so many different places that you just couldn't make out who they were.

The church is now a memorial to the 26 who were murdered.

Rusty Duncan: I've never had the experience, not with any kind of weapon like this. For me to see the damage that it did was unbelievable, it was shattering concrete, I-- you know, you can only imagine what it does to a human body.
<End>

Oh, Rusty...who would have guessed that an asst. Fire Chief, in Texas, would not "like guns," and would "make up stuff to make guns look bad?"


And, of course, it goes without saying, that the University of Southern California BALLISTICS LAB, would know nothing about firearms-- compared to Turtledude, that is.

 

They would be mortified at seeing what a 500 gr 12 gauge slug does to a ballistic gelatin block.

I saw a watermelon shot with one last Fourth of July from about 40 ft and you would be hard pressed to find a piece of that watermelon bigger than about half the size of the average cell phone.

If they would only learn what kinetic foot pounds of energy means in terminal ballistics, they would not be so susceptible to the hysterical propaganda being disseminated by left wing outfits.

But maybe it's best that they don't because then they would have a new thing to fear after realizing that the 223 round is not all that terribly spectacular

 

The thing is that we all know enough about terminal ballistics to recognize bullshit, exaggeration, and misinterpretation of limited data.

You do not.

 

What does this mean? They don't know if five Honduran nationals were murdered? I hope they at least checked to see if the Hondurans are dead before they are buried.

 

Anyone telling you the .223 has better ballistics than the 30.06 as far as destructive potential goes, is either an idiot or lying.
The 30.06 has more mass and moves at a similar speed. It imparts more energy on impact. And likewise, was used by the military in the BAR.