Thousand Oaks Country Bar shooting


Welcome to ODJT
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Sign up today!
Sign Up
Nov 10, 2006
77
101
35
55
Ventura County, CA
#1
This one hits close to home. I used to live 1/4 mile up the street from this bar when I first moved to southern CA. I know DJs that work there with some regularity and all checked in safe. My daughter no longer hangs out there as much as she once did and is safe. Several of my other friends that would go there occasionally are also safe (they're a bit too old for college night). The sheriff doing all the TV interviews lives in my neighborhood. I didn't know the officer that was killed.

All the pundits are now espousing their solutions. No one has asked yet if this is country music problem. First the Vegas concert shooting and now this. Should we ban this genre in an abundance of safety? Makes as much sense as most of the other solutions being presented.
 
Last edited:

MIXMASTERMACHOM

DJ Extraordinaire
Oct 16, 2011
7,526
1,024
115
60
#3
There are plain and simple some sick people out here today. Too bad it's not like it was many years ago when you didn't worry about such things happening. More tragedy along with the shooting in the church in Pa.
 

DJ Ricky B

DJ Extraordinaire
Mar 9, 2015
4,796
3,547
115
36
#5
Glad to hear they are okay.

My Niece lives in Semi Valley. My brother moved from Semi Valley a few years ago, but lives like 45 minutes north of there.

This shooter was former Marine as well. :(

Very Sad that this occured. It seems every week or 2 in USA we have a mass shooting now. EVERY DAY here in Baltimore people are being murdered. EVERY SINGLE DAY. ...Some weekends have as many as 10 to 15 deaths between Friday night and Sunday night. It doesn't make national news because it's considered gang violence etc.

My only suggestion is make everywhere legal to carry, and take a gun everywhere with you. If someone decides to start shooting, at least everyone else has a defensive counter measure, and have a solid chance on taking the shooter out.

Banning Guns just gives criminals more power, and leaves law abiding citizens even more vulnerable. ...Had this guy knew that lots of people would also have a gun at this bar, then he probably would not have gone in there to start shooting people.



My other suggestion would be to create terminators that are armed, and computer programmed to terminate people who pull out a gun and start shooting...Make terminators available everywhere. Of course we are at least 10 -15 years or so from that sort of tech being realistically available. Then if the machines become self aware and take over the internet to boot then all of humanity might be screwed at that point so probably not a good idea :dontknow:
 
Likes: ittigger

Handinon

DJ Extraordinaire
Oct 1, 2014
1,133
1,730
115
72
#6
All the pundits are now espousing their solutions. No one has asked yet if this is country music problem. First the Vegas concert shooting and now this. Should we ban this genre in an abundance of safety? Makes as much sense as most of the other solutions being presented.
Certainly makes as much sense as all the other crazy explanations they'll come up with. Unfortunately, the only person who really knows why he did this is already dead.

I am truly at a loss to explain these shootings. While disagreeing with it, I can understand someone murdering a specific individual because of hatred/revenge/etc.. However, the idea of walking into a public place, and randomly shooting/bombing unarmed people they don't even know, is beyond my comprehension. What's almost as bad is no one really has any idea how to stop this - the "New Norm"?

So, my 2 cents.

1) Since we are not going to get rid of the guns, make firearms education a mandatory program in our schools. Part of the course requires going to a firearms range and shooting a live animal and witnessing first hand the destructive, usually irreversible, power of a modern high powered weapon. Perhaps you'll also have greater respect for the half eaten hamburger you throw in the garbage.

2) In situations where the perpetrator has survived, a Tractor Pulling contest on all the TV channels during prime time, immediately the same day it occurred, mandatory viewing - not after 13 years of legal hassles. Two tractors, with a surviving family member(s) driving, with one arm and leg of the perpetrator tied to each. They are geared to run extremely slowly.

You do not want me to be King.
 

jaswrx

Well-Known DJ
Feb 15, 2015
234
139
45
32
#8
John, so glad to hear you and your daughter and others you know are safe.

15 minutes away from me, and I was there last year. CRAZY!
 
Likes: ittigger

ittigger

Hundred Acre Industry Icon
Feb 1, 2011
15,239
11,851
115
Western Maryland
#10
Certainly makes as much sense as all the other crazy explanations they'll come up with. Unfortunately, the only person who really knows why he did this is already dead.

I am truly at a loss to explain these shootings. While disagreeing with it, I can understand someone murdering a specific individual because of hatred/revenge/etc.. However, the idea of walking into a public place, and randomly shooting/bombing unarmed people they don't even know, is beyond my comprehension. What's almost as bad is no one really has any idea how to stop this - the "New Norm"?

So, my 2 cents.

1) Since we are not going to get rid of the guns, make firearms education a mandatory program in our schools. Part of the course requires going to a firearms range and shooting a live animal and witnessing first hand the destructive, usually irreversible, power of a modern high powered weapon. Perhaps you'll also have greater respect for the half eaten hamburger you throw in the garbage.

2) In situations where the perpetrator has survived, a Tractor Pulling contest on all the TV channels during prime time, immediately the same day it occurred, mandatory viewing - not after 13 years of legal hassles. Two tractors, with a surviving family member(s) driving, with one arm and leg of the perpetrator tied to each. They are geared to run extremely slowly.

You do not want me to be King.
As the media plays it out, today they were saying that his mother was fearful of him and what he might do.
 

Albatross

DJ Extraordinaire
Sep 7, 2016
1,507
3,443
115
#11
My only suggestion is make everywhere legal to carry, and take a gun everywhere with you. If someone decides to start shooting, at least everyone else has a defensive counter measure, and have a solid chance on taking the shooter out.

Banning Guns just gives criminals more power, and leaves law abiding citizens even more vulnerable. ...Had this guy knew that lots of people would also have a gun at this bar, then he probably would not have gone in there to start shooting people.
This is a ridiculous solution. You think we should arm a bunch of college kids drinking in bars? What could go wrong?

We're talking about a person with documented PTSD and mental health issues that was able to legally purchase that weapon. And he ultimately took his own life as well. Whether he thought those kids were armed or not is not likely to have had any consequence on this person and his actions.

The argument that "criminals will always find a way to do illegal things" is not a good reason to not put common sense restrictions (like mental health testing) in place before someone can legally purchase a gun.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Romard

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 4, 2006
16,907
11,206
115
48
Sydney, Nova Scotia
#12
I'm glad to hear everyone is safe Sawdust sorry to hear about your daughters friends

Just for the record I am not anti-gun I've owned many weapons and fired many more. I am for sensible gun ownership. Now on to this

Banning Guns just gives criminals more power, and leaves law abiding citizens even more vulnerable. ...Had this guy knew that lots of people would also have a gun at this bar, then he probably would not have gone in there to start shooting people.
Ross beat me to it this isn't a guy coming off the street randomly this guy should NEVER been allowed to possess a weapon of any kind.

There are many countries in the world that gun control/sensible ownership works explain why it wouldn't work in the US. Don't give me the second amendment or culture crap that's Fox talking points.

A Kinder Surprise is banned in the USA because it's dangerous but in many places you can buy an AR7 at a flea market. It's harder to vote or buy a car in many places than it is to buy a gun

If the NRA would put the money they spend buying politicians in to mental health initiatives some of this problem would be solved.

The theory that criminals will get guns regardless is true but the high majority of these mass shootings aren't hardened criminals they are disenfranchised white guys with serious mental health issues. Make it harder for them to get a gun and let M13 shoot the hell out of each other with their illegal guns

If you have some time or interest here's a good article

6 Real Ways to We Can Reduce Gun Violence in America - (http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/)
 

DJ Ricky B

DJ Extraordinaire
Mar 9, 2015
4,796
3,547
115
36
#13
Alright,

So All I am saying is that, legally...law abiding citizens are essentially sitting ducks out in public places where groups of people gather in MOST areas of the country.

What exactly is going to be your game plan for survival if in the unlikely, unfortunate chance you are in one of these places when a Mentally Ill white Male with a Gun walks in and starts shooting people to kill? Give me your best answer?

More than likely this is what you will think of doing:

1. Take out your cell phone if you have it, and...CALL SOMEONE WITH A GUN TO COME HELP (The Police most likely)
2. Pray they get there in time to Save you and whatever loved ones are with you at that time.

These shootings, especially when in close quarters can take less 30 seconds...even 15 seconds...even 10 seconds from start to finish.

....

IF you have a gun, on your side, and you have trained yourself on how to use that gun, you give yourself, and loved ones around you a real chance of defending yourself, and taking the Shooter out before they Kill You.

Unless The police are in the establishment you are in at the time the gun man start's popping bullets off, it will be unlikely that anyone is going to take the Shooter out before multiple people are dead.

I dunno about any of you...BUT I would rather have a gun in my possession with me if I am in this scenario.

Unfortunately, I can't just carry a gun around out in public. It's against the law where I live.
 
Likes: Valerie Hicks

ittigger

Hundred Acre Industry Icon
Feb 1, 2011
15,239
11,851
115
Western Maryland
#15
IF you have a gun, on your side, and you have trained yourself on how to use that gun, you give yourself, and loved ones around you a real chance of defending yourself, and taking the Shooter out before they Kill You.

I dunno about any of you...BUT I would rather have a gun in my possession with me if I am in this scenario.

Unfortunately, I can't just carry a gun around out in public. It's against the law where I live.
It's against the law to carry a handgun without a permit - and this is true in all states, not just Maryland. Regardless, if you arm everyone, then those same people that are armed can easily become the enemy. If you're carrying, the potential is already there. All it 'could' take is a very bad day. Lose your job, your family, etc - whatever. While I agree that this person had PTSD, I don't think it's a disorder. Some of the things our military (and others) face is hell and their reaction is not a disorder. I think it should be called PTS instead of PTSD - and for the military members (and others) that have gone through and/or are dealing with this, they need our help.

According to all the reports, this person was 'known' to the cops and his mother was fearful of him. It's easy to say now, why didn't anyone intervene .. but in reality, there are plenty of people like him that are no more than a blip on the radar and they continue on with their life without crossing the line. Something happened to cause him to cross that line and without knowing what that is or was, it is highly unlikely that you'll be solving anything.
 
Last edited:

DJ Ricky B

DJ Extraordinaire
Mar 9, 2015
4,796
3,547
115
36
#16
It's against the law to carry a handgun without a permit - but this is true in all states, not just Maryland. Regardless, if you arm everyone, then those same people that are armed can easily become the enemy. If you're carrying, the potential is already there. All it 'could' take is a very bad day. Lose your job, your family, etc - whatever. While I agree that this person had PTSD, I don't think it's a disorder. Some of the things our military (and others) face is hell and their reaction is no disorder - so I think it should be called PTS - and for the military members that have gone through and/or are dealing with this, they need help.

According to all the reports, this person was 'known' to the cops and his mother was fearful of him.
Exactly. So who is the government to infringe on the right of the people to protect ourselves against aggressors/terrorists/crazy people/invaders foreign and domestic???

It's easy for people to blame an inanimate object about the problems we are facing today. Years, and Years ago, before my time really...People drove around with Rifles hanging from the back of their truck window, or sitting in their trunk. People got into fist fights all the time, got drunk and rowdy. Back then there were not all of these mass murders happening all the time. Mass murders were very rare compared to the last 20 years.

I'm sorry to say that this is not a gun problem. It's a people problem.

We also can't expect everyone with mental issues to go out and get the proper help that they need. Frankly, some people just don't want to be helped. Some will flat out refuse it. ...How does society identify those with mental health issues so severe that they are likely to go out and Kill a bunch of people? Anyone could purchase a gun, own a gun, and then years later become mentally ill. How do others FORCE help on them when others notice something is wrong?

...

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI] - (https://www.concealedcarry.com/news/armed-citizens-are-successful-95-of-the-time-at-active-shooter-events-fbi/)

In the last 18 years, there were 283 official Active Shooter Events. Out of those 283, there were armed citizens at 33 of them. Out of those 33 incidents that a person with a gun was around when the incident occurred, 75.8% of the time, the bystander with a gun on them was successful in stopping the active shooter.

I don't know about you all, but I like those odds WAY MORE than the odds of being involved in a active shooter situation when not 1 person in the area has a gun on themselves to defend themselves and save lives.

Number of Active Shooter events in which the armed bystander killed other civilians....ZERO

Active Shooter situations that occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" usually yield the Active Shooter the ability to kill 8 or more people.
 
Likes: Valerie Hicks

wifedj

DJ Extraordinaire
Mar 20, 2008
777
716
95
#17
"We're talking about a person with documented PTSD and mental health issues...
...that was apparently treated, from a medico-psychological standpoint., through ineffective, over-tolerance poisoned, facilitative and non-corrective, consequence-less, feel-goodism methodology.

...that was able to legally purchase that weapon."
The weapon used was fitted with an ILLEGAL clip proving that more restrictive laws will never solve the problem because law breakers and individuals intent on murderous and nefarious behavior do not consult statutes and rules when planning their actions. They are devoured by their selfish thoughts and have no moral compass that would lead them to consider, let alone acknowledge rules, laws, and commandments that the VAST majority of the population adheres to in order to behave and live like decent, humane, and compassionate people.

Sadly, these damaged, amoral individuals have amoral leaders to look to support their selfish, violent plans. In the not so distant past we were directed, by former and present U.S. Government officials to treat people with whom we disagree with absolute incivility and provocative and offensive force..."you cannot be civil with a...party that wants to destroy what you stand for." and "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up...you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

If you are a debilitated, mentally or cognitively, individual, those rhetorical calls to arm are likely a mere short hop to "take them out" with the them being a wide, unknowable, but real population, a/k/a anyone.

We are becoming a Godless nation. Godless countries are ruled by tyrants and populated by a proletariat that have no moral foundation from which to govern and/or by which to be governed. (See China/China is the least religious country, where almost 7 out of 10 people are atheists *).

*Religion prevails in the world - (http://gallup-international.bg/Publications/2017/373-Religion-prevails-in-the-world)

1541774595062.png
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion about setting rates, cheap lighting effects and leeching, I mean, where to get your music.
 
Last edited:

Albatross

DJ Extraordinaire
Sep 7, 2016
1,507
3,443
115
#18
I'm sorry to say that this is not a gun problem. It's a people problem.

We also can't expect everyone with mental issues to go out and get the proper help that they need. Frankly, some people just don't want to be helped. Some will flat out refuse it. ...How does society identify those with mental health issues so severe that they are likely to go out and Kill a bunch of people? Anyone could purchase a gun, own a gun, and then years later become mentally ill. How do others FORCE help on them when others notice something is wrong?
The same way we check to see if people that drive cars can still see. You check. As a condition of owning a vehicle and driving it on public streets, there are conditions for ownership. You must prove yourself competent to operate the machine. If you are caught doing things with the machine that are illegal, they will restrict those rights. And from time to time, they will re-check you to make sure that your critical skills for operating safely haven't been compromised.

Does it stop all vehicle deaths? Of course not. Vehicles and guns are both dangerous machines. They can, and will kill people. But we continue to regulate their use because it helps more than it hurts to put these measures in place. Criminals may still drive a car without a license, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a law that says they shouldn't.

What I don't understand is the attitude that if one simple law cannot prevent the problem entirely, that we should not put common sense practices in place to curb the problem.

To be clear here... I'm not an anti-gun activist. I own a rifle and believe that Americans should be able to safely own a firearm. But I don't believe that its unreasonable for my fitness in owning a firearm to be tested from time to time.
 

steve149

Urbane Legend
Sep 26, 2011
21,143
30,142
115
Prospect, CT
#19
It's against the law to carry a handgun without a permit - and this is true in all states, not just Maryland. Regardless, if you arm everyone, then those same people that are armed can easily become the enemy. If you're carrying, the potential is already there. All it 'could' take is a very bad day. Lose your job, your family, etc - whatever. While I agree that this person had PTSD, I don't think it's a disorder. Some of the things our military (and others) face is hell and their reaction is not a disorder. I think it should be called PTS instead of PTSD - and for the military members (and others) that have gone through and/or are dealing with this, they need our help.

According to all the reports, this person was 'known' to the cops and his mother was fearful of him. It's easy to say now, why didn't anyone intervene .. but in reality, there are plenty of people like him that are no more than a blip on the radar and they continue on with their life without crossing the line. Something happened to cause him to cross that line and without knowing what that is or was, it is highly unlikely that you'll be solving anything.
Actually, there are 13 states where you can carry concealed WITHOUT a permit ( a few require you to be a state resident) .. Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States)
 
Likes: ittigger

DJ Ricky B

DJ Extraordinaire
Mar 9, 2015
4,796
3,547
115
36
#20
The same way we check to see if people that drive cars can still see. You check. As a condition of owning a vehicle and driving it on public streets, there are conditions for ownership. You must prove yourself competent to operate the machine. If you are caught doing things with the machine that are illegal, they will restrict those rights. And from time to time, they will re-check you to make sure that your critical skills for operating safely haven't been compromised.

Does it stop all vehicle deaths? Of course not. Vehicles and guns are both dangerous machines. They can, and will kill people. But we continue to regulate their use because it helps more than it hurts to put these measures in place. Criminals may still drive a car without a license, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a law that says they shouldn't.

What I don't understand is the attitude that if one simple law cannot prevent the problem entirely, that we should not put common sense practices in place to curb the problem.

To be clear here... I'm not an anti-gun activist. I own a rifle and believe that Americans should be able to safely own a firearm. But I don't believe that its unreasonable for my fitness in owning a firearm to be tested from time to time.
There are already many laws in place. Laws against Bump Stocks etc. There are already background check laws.

What laws can society put in place to further prevent individuals who are mentally ill from owning a fire arm?

Should people be required to take yearly, or every other year, or every 3 year mental evaluation tests by a government ran agency? What rules/laws can we instill as a society to curb mass shootings?

I am an advocate for all people with a drivers license above the age of 80 to be required to take a driver's test at their local DMV every 2 years, and be cleared mentally fit by their doctor every 2 years in order to continue to drive. Is that not reasonable? ...Yet I get a lot of blow back from people about my stance on the issue because I feel many older drivers on the road are a hazard, and need more over sight on their abilities to drive ...DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE IS NOT EVEN A RIGHT...IT'S A PRIVILEGE as defined by the MVA/DMV. Yet, lots of people have issues with my suggestion.


Should Gun Owners be subjected to doing 2 year mental evaluations, and passing them according to standards set by our government in order to continue to own their guns? Should continual background checks occur on every legal gun over every 2 years as well?

It's a right to be able to own a fire arm, but if one is declared mentally ill, or did something questionable between the time a background check is ran, and the time the original background check was ran in order to purchase a gun, do they automatically forfeit their rights to own a gun moving forward?
 
Likes: wifedj
  • New posts