Maybe the hostage taker does.

If you speak to the Police they will tell you hostage cases like this often end up going worse and hostages killed when someone does have a gun and plays hero. It often leads to killing of the hostages and then suicide by the shooter They DO NOT want any John Wayne's inside

I wonder if the gunman is using a registered firearm?

For all you know the guy with the Concealed Weapons Permit could be the hostage taker, so shove THAT up your "Second Amendment Rights"!

Guns are weapons of mass destruction, they should be banned within city limits except for law enforcement.

Searcher 8.......get a clue and a life!

PJuliett, you are right on the money on this one.

no $h!t !

The real threat is the lender. Gosh Darn Bankers ´ll do anything to make a buck. Worse than a Realtor.

At this point does it really matter if the hostage taker has a permit or not?

@searcher and @PJuliett both of you can kiss my a**!! The "2nd amendment" of the constitution gives me and all citizens of the United States the right to have and own a weapon except for a convicted felon and I believe in the "2nd amendment" and the rest of the constitution!

PJuliet and Searcher -

Tell me, how-oh-how is allowing firearms only for LEO's going to, in anyway, stop criminal possession, misconduct, and violence? The vast, vast majority of violent, gun related crime is commited by those with a known penchant for breaking the law. They will not allow a simple ban to get in their way.

The one's I would feel really sorry for, is such an law were passed, would be the LEO's. No offense meant to them at all, but their life would become forfeit to any semi-organized group of punk criminals who decided they needed the gun more than the police officer.

brings back memories of Tony Kiritsis

PJuliett - So passing a law to ban guns inside city limits would solve gun-related crimes how? We already have laws against gun violence. Criminals tend not to follow laws - that's why they are criminals. So your proposed ban would accomplish absolutely nothing except possibly removing guns from law abiding citizens living within a city limit. And, some cities DO have such a law (i.e. New York). Of course in those cities there is never any gun-related crime is there? Plan B?

You liberals touting the dangers of handguns are sheep for the liberal media and anti-gun propaganda. Guns aren't weapons of mass destructions... idiots with guns are weapons of mass destruction. I've owned guns for 28 of my 34 years in this world and have yet to shoot anyone but it has protected myself, my loved ones, and my possessions from harm and theft on multiple occassions. When you create a situation where only the people without regard for the lawfulness of their possession of a firearm continue to have them, you ensure a dangerous environment for everyone... private citizens as well as law enforcement.

The only thing that should be banned from city limits is idiots like you spewing biased falsehoods based on personal beliefs with no footing in facts. California has possibly the most restrictive gun legislation anywhere and ranks FOURTH of all states in terms of gun violence with over 72% of homicides being committed with a firearm while Texas, with its highly permissible gun legislation, ranks 14th with only 64% of its homicides involving firearms... Likewise, Alaska ranks 27th with only 45% of its homicides involving firearms.

If guns kill people, than cars cause accidents, pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat.

John (hhandld), you hit the nail on the head, searcher and pjuliett are morons. If they had a .45 cal in their hand and a terrorist was running at them wearing a suicide vest, they would ask, "is it something I did, was he abused growing up, is he being discriminated against, etc, etc, etc." I would, naturally, empty the mag without question lol.

It a liberal thing I guess.

Matadormike 1.2

You would prefer no one have a gun so they may be more easily dispatched like so many sheep. Perhaps one of the hostages having a concealed weapon doesn't guarantee a positive outcome but not having one certainly guarantees an unpleasant outcome.

I think all you anti-gunners will one day lament the fact that that you never got one.

Hey steve and others in your court, just one question.

Given that the US is one of the most armed societies on the face of the earth, why is the crime rate so high? If you guys are to be believed, crime should be 0 right?

Even if you ban all guns,a person who wants one will always find one!

Just ook at drugs as an example... they are all illegal but I can go and find some anytime i feel like it, making them illegal wont work!

Even in countries where gun ownership is banned,they still have situations like this!

If you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns!

I'd rather have one and not need one, than need one and not have one!

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA!

@Steve in Kabul - searcher and pjuliett sound like people that would show up at gun fight with just a knife.

John (hhandld)

You're wrong. With a knife someone could get hurt...... ;-)

"George Washington did not beat the British by exercising his 1st Amendment Rights. He shot them."

One good sniper is all you need. Tell the guy to come to the door to talk and....problem solved.

Pat, you jump right to the first line of defense of the anti-gun crowd - and, you are wrong. Crime in the U.S. is unacceptably high, I think we can all admit that. However, there are MANY reasons for this. Granted, IF there were NO guns anywhere on the face of the earth, the number of deaths and severe injuries due to criminal actions would likely be less simply because guns do provide a relatively easy way to inflict quick and widespread lethal damage. Unfortunately, we don't live in the land of unicorns and butterflies and there ARE guns. Criminals will ALWAYS have them and USE them. Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens be allowed to have them as well? And, for the record, I do not own a gun so I'm not shilling for the NRA - just applying some common sense.

Pat... who said that if everyone was armed there would be zero crime? I don't believe anyone on this forum did. Carrying a firearm is simply an insurance so that you would be a victim to said crimes.

Take Jamaica for example... they have had some of the strictest gun laws in place since 1974... That's almost 30 years of 99% gun ban. Crime is RAMPANT there. Why? Because the only people who are weaponless are the law abiding citizens, and the criminals know that. For the amount of people per capita the crime right is very high.

What happens if I'm not allowed to carry my gun anymore? And I'm assaulted by a 6'5" 250lb man who wants to rape and kill me? What then? Scream and hope somebody can come to the rescue? Would that be my sacrifice for the greater good of a gun-less America?

@ howllen - Even if a carrier has a conceal carry permit, if a business has a notice saying, in essence,[Businessname] Bans Guns On Premises, the carrier can get charged for using it even in today's type of situation.

PJuliet, the gun ban was tried in D.C. and Chicago and SCOTUS shot it down as unconstitutional. Please stop whining and live with reality.

Sounds like a Latino waving his LA RAZA rights and an AK-47.

@txmom32

Indiana does not register guns.

Plan B? Surely to ban the sale of ammunition for those illegal guns :)

The Founding Fathers, bless them, wrote the Constitution diligently when they were living in the wild frontier days, militias were needed and there were territories to be explored. They couldn't foresee the atomic age nor our man on the moon.

Get over it, we aren't living in the wild wild west and there are no 'injuns' on the warpath except in the minds of inadequate people who think it makes them feel macho to feel a bulge on their body.

Legislative ban on guns would remove at least eighty percent of these weapons of mass destruction from towns and cities. Sure, hardened criminals could lay their hands on such weapons but it would become increasingly difficult, and certainly more expensive, for them to do so.

At least 'soft' criminals would feel less of the sudden urge to terrorize, like this Indiana hostage situation.

Peace.

@ Pat

If you actually know the facts the overwhelming number of the crimes you speak of happen in towns and cities with the worst anti-gun laws. IE. New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, L.A., etc. Kindof blows a large hole in your flawed logic.

I live 30 mins away from Valpo. To all you people talking in the abstract it really comes down to 1 question: If it were you being held hostage, would you want a gun or prefer to be unarmed and hope the police can save you.

I'd prefer to be armed which is why I carry. Valpo is not a violent place and shows that this can happen anywhere.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Had to look it up since it was being tossed around here - mostly by PJuliett. Gun don't qualify under the definition. I am a proud gun owner!

minds of inadequate people who think it makes them feel macho to feel a bulge on their body

A lot of women seem to enjoy that feeling.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44690575/ns/today-today_news/t/chicks-guns-some-million-us-women-pack-heat/

'Chicks with Guns': Some 15 million US women pack heat

Pop quiz: Name one accessory that grandmothers, moms, girls, wealthy socialites, middle-class females and low-income women might be likely to own — and cherish — all across America.

If you answered "a gun," you'd be correct.

Based on polling research and gun-sale statistics, an estimated 15 million to 20 million women in the United States own their own firearms....

PJuliett... your ignorance is staggering. The man on the moon and the atomic age has nothing to do with second amendment rights, nor does "injuns" on the war path or anything else you're rambling on about. Also, if you had half as much as clue as you think you do... you'd know the second amendment preceeded the Wild West and "injuns" by roughly 100 years.

A legislative ban woudn't remove ANYTHING. FACT: I can purchase a fully automatic, illegal Uzzi for less money than I can currently purchase a highly regulated and limited semi-auto, non-detachable magazine AR for here in California. Legislating guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't do anything to limit crime becasue... wait for it... those citizens are LAW ABIDING. All it does is ensures that the only firearms available and the only firearms owners there are come in the non-law abiding variety who... wait for it... don't give a damn what the legislation says.

And since you're clearly in the dark and completely misguided on what the second amendment actually stipulates... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Period, end of story... No mention of "injuns" or the wild west, atomic theory, or pansy ass liberals getting their passive sensibilities in a knot.

I am so grateful to have PJuliett on my side in a different issue. While we disagree on the use of firearms by the public we at least both agree that Iraq had WMD and now Bush has been exonerated for invading.

What is the matter with you people, by the time you give up your constitutionally guaranteed rights you will no longer be free - and one right after another can be taken away because someone else doesn't like THAT right. I, for one, WANT every one of MY constitutional rights (whether I chose to exercise that right or not) and since those of us that do want ALL our constitutionally guaranteed out number you will not succeed and we will keep them. You have the right to your opinions and I respect that - you don't want a gun - DON'T BUY ONE - but in return you should respect MY RIGHTS and stop trying to take away my right to own a gun. By exercising your opinions you are denying me mine. But, none of you can see that can you because you are just obsessed with YOUR rights. Even if you succeed in repealing my second amendment rights you will never get the all guns off the street because the criminal element will ALWAYS find a way to get guns and you will have effectively put my family in jeopardy - not to mention yours.

@Sees Thru Gloss

Not in the state of Indiana, no gun signs do not carry the weight of law. A business can ask you to leave, and if you refuse they can have you charged with trespassing. Beyond that, there is no penalty.

Ophotfoot: Would you please give us some facts about your facts? What is the population of the towns and cities in which you write? Do most people in the US live in a city? Do you're figures represent all crime using guns or just all crimes in general? Is this per capita rates or just raw totals.

I looked for it but could not find the data that you purport as fact.

Frankly, I think you might be in dispute with your own facts and simply propagating a myth.

I would greatly appreciate this data link. Thank you.

I wish people would cut it with the political crap. The conservatives of today are not the traditional idea of a conservative---or I would be one. I'm more liberal leaning but still believe every law abiding citizen should have the right to own a firearm. People say guns kill people. Yeah, they do. Stupid people with guns. Taking the guns away won't make the people any smarter. They'll still kill you given the chance.

@Crazy... You must not have searched very hard cause five minutes in google will return more info than you could read in a day. It's afact that firearms homicides are higher in urban areas compared to rural.. just as its a fact that firearms suicide rates are higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Likewise it's also a fact that DC has the highest firearms murder rate of anywhere in the US, more than twice the next closest area (Louisianna) with something like 17 murders per 100k people compared to 7.something. Google "gun crime statistics by state" or "by city" etc and do your own research.

Banning guns would only take them away from honest and responsible gun owners. Do you idiots actually think the criminals are going to turn their guns in? Not likely since their guns are probably already illegally owned. The only people that would have guns are criminals and the government. What a great idea, NOT!! Now all of the rapist and thieves can break into any house they want and have their way with your family because they know you are not armed. Not knowing what house is armed and knowing that if you break into the wrong house you may get your head blown off is a damn good deterrent.

Steve in Kabul: If someone were running at you wearing a bomb vest and you had a 45 in your hand my bet is that before he died from your bullet wound the bomb would go off and you would BOTH be dead along with a lot of other people. Gun 0 Bomb 1. Bad choice for an example. :0(

Has taking hostages ever worked out for the hostage taker? At what point did he think this was a good idea? I like how they sent in a "negotiating" team. What is there to negotiate? Give up and go to prison, or don't give up and we come in and kill you. Ok, Negotiating Team

Those against gun rights are Nazis, plain and simple. No-one should listen to their warped ideologies. People, whether good or bad, will have weapons that they intend to use on others and they will always have them as they always have. It is that simple. The only way you could ensure that nobody has weapons to harm others would be to engage in tactics that would render society a totalitarian nightmare not worth living. You liberals are f*cking morons who just want to sound good. You could care less that you don't make any sense, that is why you are referred to as "trendies", you follow and support the trends regardless if they make any sense or not. That is why one might see a liberal trendy stopping, on their way to the abortion clinic, to help a homeless person because they are such humanitarians. Ludicrous. That is because at this moment in time a women's right to not be burdened by a mouth to feed supersedes a child's right to life, aided be the theory of over-population and anthropogenic global warming, no doubt. If you monsters get your way, Earth's population will be reduced dramatically, then the trend might shift to favour the child's rights. It is no different than those who like to preach that God does not exist. Okay, fine, but what you fail to realise is that if born 1000 years ago, 9 out 10 of you would be preaching the opposite. My point: you are fake, your opinion is useless, tainted, and irrelevant. You change according to the "atmosphere" you live in. You can't think for yourselves, you are weak followers of media propaganda, peer pressure, and a serious ego problem.

crazy after all these years

When asked to verify my facts my first response is to tell that person go look it up themselves and prove my statement as incorrect. In this way that person - if they really want verified facts will search for themselves and in the process get their own education. Some people use that "verify your facts" statement as just a ploy to shut you up - is that true in your question to Ophotfoot?

@crazy after all these years

If you want to take away somebodys rights shouldn't you be providing the facts and statistics on how it will make things so much better?

OMG! you guys are like a bunch of little kids, arguing who better, superman, or batman! i could not possibly imagin the lot of you to not just aree with 1 thing, but give it 10 minutes to a chair toss!lmao!

seriously, this is supposed to be about the story, and it isnt gun control. i'm not sure if you realised in the story, what they do know is, C21 has one really pi$$ed off customer who has hostages.

in a case like this, no matter, the guy feels more than jilted enough, he took hostages. he knows at this point, there is 3 outcomes, and only 1, nobody dies. i think this guy wants to be heard, (this is all in relation to the STORY or ARTICLE), and i think maybe.... just maybe.... we should find out a little more about wha's going on before trying to smash another guys fence, if you get my drift.

as for guns being a weapon of mass destruction, and only government malitia should be armed, in the US, is nonsence. people kill people, and violent crime will continue, guns, or no guns. so it is what it is.... personally i am more than happy with current gun laws, and i do not own one. we have C/C here also.

its funny how people jump to the 'well if guns were banned' , but i am happy to see so many people defending the 2nd in here.

its simple folks. and you can check this with the FBI crime stats...

97% of all crimes committed with guns are guns that were obtained illegally.

95% of those are people with criminal records that would prohibit them from obtaining a gun legally in the first place.

and even though the police say 'dont stop them it will just cause more deaths' what they dont tell you is that armed citizens stop a lot more crime then 'their gun being used against them'. those that actually carry and practice with their firearms have stopped many crimes... the news just doesnt report that because it isnt 'sexy' enough.

wtfjes66 - I voted for your post (1.37)and just had to say I agree, in person.

onlyyoucanchangethelaws

Thank you. I remember our previous posts, it's good to see you're contributing your opinions to the posting/commenting community.

Nothing serious folks. No Constitutional issues to solve there. Just more fun and games in the meth and heroin capital of Indiana. Valparaiso. The white trash had to go somewhere when Gary became a black city.

Diana,

re: Steve in Kabul

Bomb wearer would not necessarily have to be dead but knocked down. I know people who could do both with a wrist rocket and a steely.

The idiot is dead. Let's move on.

Next.

Ahem...

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

So, let's review: guns are used for violent crime in just 8% of cases, or around 436,000 times each year (bear in mind that data is from 2008, and violent crime has decreased since then, so that number may actually be lower now in 2012). Conversely, firearms are used to STOP, DETER or PREVENT crime somewhere between 989,883 - 1,029,615 times each year. So what does this mean?

It means that Firearms are used to Stop/Prevent crime more than twice as often as they are used to commit them.

And all you liberal, equalitopian well-wishers want to take away everyone's constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms? Why??? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that responsible, legal use of firearms outweighs any negative repercussions of their prevalence in society.

For statistics used in this comment, visit http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp for more info.

WMG-21,

Thanks for the facts! I wonder what the national medias excuse is for only running stories involving gun crime and never guns used by citizens to save their or others lives. Common sense would tell anyone they have an agenda. Of course the anti-gun talking heads have armed bodyguards and live in gated/guarded communities..

And I'm assaulted by a 6'5" 250lb man who wants to rape and kill me? What then?

If this said person had you in their grasp, explain how you're going to draw your weapon.

Just because you're armed, doesn't mean you're safe.

The biggest and most misunderstood belief, is that if you're armed, you're protected.

A firearm is only useful if you can access it before your assailant is on top of you. After that, it is quite likely your own firearm will be used to kill you.

Stay alert, stay alive. Owning a firearm isn't get out of danger pass. It's a possible means of protection, not an absolute one. Too many people feel they are safe while in possession of one. When in reality, they are lulled into a false sense of security. Keeping your wits about you, is a vital tool that needs be used when wielding a powerful weapon.

A firearm isn't a crutch.

Look I am perfectly imperfect. I find most of these comments to be the writings of blood thirsty imbeciles.

I have been robbed by gun point duct taped and beaten, however I did not want to see the perpetrators dead. He let the hostages go and killed himself (people applauded his suicide) we have a sick culture.

JUSTICE was not served he was obviously having some mental issues and needed help. "There is no excuse for abuse" and it is not meant as a linear comment.

CondemNation and then You will look at Iran and China and say they are bellow you? You are just a weaker version.

Am i advocating holding people hostage? Absolutely NOT!

Let me add I would do whatever necessary to protect my family and friends plus I would and have placed my life on the line for an absolute stranger. What I am saying is most of you talk from your butt and are very shallow! Blanket Attack on your lack of Morals, respect and dignity.

Sad I am so wrong you must have leadership. Get back in your cage!

This just doesn't seem right. Why would a man take hostages from a building where a guy worked at that owed him money? After the guy doesn't pay (or pays) why then would the guy slowly let hostages go, and then kill himself? This just doesn't make any sense at all. How much money were they talking about? But really, is any amount of money worth killing yourself over? Really? How much?

MDB 123----I was also saddened and disgusted that people were cheering at death..Hell they didn't even know for sure if this was the perpetrator....It is the same people who cause traffic jams when there is an accident on the other side of a divided highway by slowing down and stopping to get a glimpse of blood and injury..Human nature is despicable....I choose to not follow the nature of most humans....I like being a compassionate human who follows the golden rule and I also turn the other cheek now ( Didn't always) and I try to help others.....I also do my best not to judge others personally...I do judge people generally sometimes just like I just did(Human nature comment)....God bless the perpetrator and the other victims..

BTW I believe in the right to bear arms and I believe whole heartedly that the right should not be infringed at all like it says....How in the hell can they make any laws against gun ownership when it says that? It doesn't say unless you have a felony or live in a city or some vindictive ex-girlfriend lied and got a protection order against you .....If they want to make any gun control laws the constitution needs to be changed from what it currently states...The supreme court didn't even say that recently they skirted around the issue and said some gun control was okay but that is total horsecrap....
"Shall not be infringed " is pretty plain English...most laws are vague and can be interpreted many ways,but the second amendment is the clearest law I have ever seen...So WTF is the deal?

Hmmm? Well I never really thought of it that way. I do wonder what the forefathers would say if present today? However the system we currently have is not infallible nor is it permanent, tomorrow brings tomorrow no guarantees.

It is comicle how the current anti-democrats use fast and furious for there benefit yet they claim to fully align with the very same second amendment. Just a thought.

Personally I possess but don't carry. I would prefer to read about the wild wld west not live it.

When we where robbed I had an opportunity to try and subdue one of the gun men. They had the gun pointed at another during the robbery, yet my mind raced and I did not want to cause a shooting victim due to incompetence on my part. It all happens so unexpectedly and very quickly. I choose inaction and we went home after the police where done accusing all of us :)

Ophotfoot:

If you actually know the facts the overwhelming number of the crimes you speak of happen in towns and cities with the worst anti-gun laws. IE. New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, L.A., etc. Kindof blows a large hole in your flawed logic

My question:

Ophotfoot: Would you please give us some facts about your facts? What is the population of the towns and cities in which you write? Do most people in the US live in a city? Do you're figures represent all crime using guns or just all crimes in general? Is this per capita rates or just raw totals.

I looked for it but could not find the data that you purport as fact.

LeroyBrown's reply:

Google "gun crime statistics by state" or "by city" etc and do your own research.

Did that before I posted my question. These facts do not answer the question.

To WMG-21: Thank you for the link. I believe the link was factual but it seems to be a conglomeration of a few facts and surveys. The article seemed very scholarly with footnotes but seemed to have a bias. It pulls information from different sources and years.

After researching the site and the author, I found the author and the website owner to be the same person. This is not a good sign. Moreover, Agresti is a New Jersey conservative/libertarian. The site itself only deals with "hot button" social issues. Abortion-Bad, Privatizing Social Security-Good and so on. But this is what put me over the edge. Agresti's one book:

Rational Conclusions, a highly researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines.

I believe this to be a person pulling the facts that agree with his agenda and ignoring facts that are contradictions of his belief. Amusing was the deflection of using a graph showing the number of deaths by guns compared to other forms of death which he proclaims as accidental. What does this have to do with anything? Is he trying to say that homicides by guns are not a problem or that we should lower speed limits to 25mph?

I find this piece to be biased.

To the rest who posted the answer is no. I truly would like some unbiased facts. On this subject and others I'm not sure they even exist. The FBI and DOJ should be compiling this data, but apparently neither does.

I'm not against guns, own several myself. Three rifles (one semi-auto), three hand guns (one semi-auto), and one pump shotgun.

Obviously gun control can only work on a national basis. Would any of you be in favor of the gun itself being able to distinguish the owner by fingerprint? How about elimination of carry laws but when you do carry it must be exposed for all to see? How about no restrictions on anyone, anywhere, and anytime?

@Crazy -- never looked into who the author was or what agenda he may have, I just reviewed the facts cited and where he collected them. I recognize that the data set is accumulated from differing years, but the site clearly states that this was the most up-to-date information available at the time (2010). The FBI does compile crime statistics, and they can be accessed here:

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

and here:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

At present, they do not compile data about defensive use of firearms and our best available data comes from surveys-- an admittedly fallible process.

@Ophotfoot

Occasionally they do run stories about it, like this one:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

...Dear god I think the comments on here are copy and pasted from another shooting case I read on here... Oh wait no this was two days ago...Okay I see whats up with this now. They updated it

This man's crazy switch flipped, and after all else failed he shot himself in the head not once, but twice. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but who really gets the opportunity to shoot a second time after it didn't work the first time?! That's the real "freaky" part. And the other freaky part? He STILL isn't dead! Critical condition is close, but, what?!

I don't recall a source named for the he shot himself twice in the head comment, so right now I am taking that with a grain of salt. Two head shots completed in the way that we normally think of them seem impossible to negotiate. Perhaps he grazed himself with the first shot and gathered the courage for the second. The first shot could have been a test fire. A witness reported that police also fired. He entered the building at 11am and released hostages over a 6-hour period (which is also questionable---incrementally released hostages before released last). That puts the time that he shot himself at 5pm, earliest. Police entered shortly after through a shattered window. How?---His first shot or did police do it? The story is updated at 6:15pm. Bullets would have to be tested (recovered?) to verify two shots and the weapons that delivered them. An hour and 15 minutes amounts to one quick investigation.

Help me out here. Am I wrong? What else am I missing?

There are quite a few people with their eyes shot out in mental wards... Thats probably what happend. I would go with the gun in roof of mouth shot instead of the temple shot if I made that decision. There is a song about it.. Hey Man Nice Shot.

Reminds me of a situation in our community when a group of goofballs were playing Russian roulette and one of them blinded himself. It turned into one of those "let's see if he dies before we tell our story" things. One of the others self-published a book of redundant poems about how bad he felt about it. The shooter died years later of complications. They had been shooting up 80 proof. You would have to be in love with a needle to do that. What the hell was supposed to be wrong with drinking it?

"Hey, Joe, Where you goin' with that gun in your hand?" The only Hendrix tune that I ever really liked.

Get 'em, Mike.

concur

If they get hurt then they will complain that the city did not do enough to protect them and want to sue.

If they get hurt then they will complain that the city did not do enough to protect them and want to sue.

Whatever happened to "Highway Patrol" and Broderick Crawford. He would away have the mess cleaned up in less than 30 minutes.

....and would end the show with a cleaver quip like "Leave your blood in your stool not on the highway."

The article states it is a domestic issue between the gunman and his girlfriend, who apparently works in that office.

To your realestate office with a gun? lol

chuck-420723

So sorry to hear that. Too many people are being caught up in this terrible economy and it doesn't look like it's goiong to end soon - I'm waiting for the Greece an EU impact to hit and make things even worse. Oh and BTW it's NOT the peoples of the world's fault, it's the leaders of the world.........right! In a sense though it is our fault. We need to make better choices as to who our leaders are.

Valpo is EAST of Chicago, Not south.

Have to agree with yo 100% I thought Huff Post was bad but this ranks up there with them first you say Chicago then your talking about Munster IN Police that should have told the reporter something was wrong with the report duhhhhh

I hope this situation is resolved quickly and those being held are not injured.

I live 20 minutes from Valpo. Didn't know we were part of a "suburb" of Chicago. I always thought we were a city in Indiana. And we would be slightly south because of the tip of Lake Michigan, then east.

WOW! I live in Valpo, and I've ALWAYS known we were a suburb of Chicago. . . we are closer than may of the "suburbs" that are North/North East. There are many people that live in Northwest Indiana that commute to Chicago everyday for work. It is possible to be a suburb of Chicago and a city in Indiana, people. And there is nothing wrong with saying we are South either because to simply say "east" would indicate you are in Lake Michigan. Most correctly, we are South-East. Mkay??? Done with geography class for the day.

Domestic.. That's sad to me I hope it ends well.. He probably would have killed her at home..

What do you expect? This MSNBC! The mistakes they make it is a big wonder if they can even get to there place of work. They certainly don't know where they are located (Indiana or Illinois) according to this report.

Regardless of the fact that the reporter doesn't know that Chicago and Valpo are in different states, I can confirm that there IS a hostage situation and gunshots have been heard. My best friend is on lockdown across the street because of it. I just hope the situation is resolved quickly and that everyone stays safe.

I live in Valpo, and it seems to me that if you can be in downtown Chicago in less time than some in the far Northern or Western suburbs, and if you have a significant population of professional and scholastic commuters, rely almost exclusively on Chicago's media outlets and cultural outlets - then it' safe to characterize this as a suburb.

Region Girl, when you say "region" that means NW Indiana. While many describe us as being close to Chicago, we are not a suburb of that city.

Ummmm Indiana-Region Girl, better go back to Geography class, since Valpo is in Indiana and not Illinois, and suburbs of a city are classified as being in the SAME state bordering that City. That's why states have 'borders,' or else certain cities located in Lake County, IN that border Chicago, IL would be a suburb, like Whiting, IN which is 2 miles from Chicago's Southside, not Porter County, where Valparaiso is located one County East of Lake County and 54 miles from Chicago.

Everything is just a suburb to Chicago!!!

Milwaukee, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Detroit are suburbs of Chicago!!

Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the country, so 1/3 of the country is a suburb of Chicago.

Um, Fantomdog- The word suburb mostly refers to a residential area, either existing as part of a city (as inAustralia and New Zealand, and generally in the United Kingdom) or as a separate residential community within commuting distance of a city (as in the United States and Canada).. . .This is from wikipedia, my friend. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE SAME STATE. CAN BE WITHIN COMMUTING DISTANCE, SILLY. And FYI, I ACED geography class ;-)

Thats great! People cant afford food, housing and medical, AND NOW WE HAVE TO ALSO BUY A GUN BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS ONE!!!??? $400.00-$500.00 no thanks @!$%#s!

Steve-2787806

Many of these posts are off topic - but the topic itself is not the complete issue, it's all the other comments and debates that it inspires. BUT you hit on a crucial point - we can no longer believe what we read in the media. I have never seen so much prejudiced reporting - half-truths, quotes taken out of context just to insight......what? Readership, additionally artificially created stories (Trayvon Martin, come to mind)? I am totally with you on this issue, reporting and media coverage is very unreliable and lacks what used to be called source investigation - investigative reporting on true facts, not agendas! Following a lead and reporting the complete facts honestly.

Lui Seguivia Facebook

No sense getting all uptight with everyone. You made a choice for yourself - nobody is condemning you. It was YOUR decision.

Lui Segui...

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

Of course everyone had swords back then, if they had guns it would obviously refer to that instead.. common sense pending...

If it's the whole world, at least we can all be sad together

It's still better than any other world I know of.

So why do you support the NRA?

Fail

Look at your map again and read some of the above posts. Valpo is closer to actual Chicago than some of the Illinois "suburbs" of it.

Talk, Valpo is 54 miles and another County East of Chicago, and the kicker....in INDIANA, As far as the farthest suburbs from Chicago are app. 35 miles away, which include Steger to the South, Oak Park to the West, Lake Forest to the North.

uh... wow. <cough> Kansas City <cough>

Sometimes people are so disconnected, they have no empathy for the situation. They only think about how it justifies their political agenda. I agree with you! May everyone come out of there alive.

kulu kabe no talkie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

One key criterion as to whether a distant community is a suburb is work location. Is there a substantial portion of the Valparaiso population that commutes to Chicago for work, or is Valparaiso a self-sustaining economic community where people have an Indiana accent and only a handful of its citizens commute to Chicago?

Number one. Ding ding ding ding. Tell Sees Thru Gloss what he won Johnny!

Why are people so adamant that Valpo, IN is not a suburb??? It most certainly is. Don't take my word for it, look up the definition of "suburb" then look at a map. Valpo has a great economy, but it is connected to Chicago in big ways. In fact all of NW Indiana (Lake, Porter, and LaPorte County) is on Central time specifically to be on the same time as Chicago. BOOM!

Time zones? Valpo is not a suburb of Chicago. Suburb: immediately connected to a city. Valpo has a lot of farms between them and Chicago. It contains 27,000 people almost all caucasion. Porter county has the 4th highest income per capita in the state, probably because of Valparaiso University with 4,000 students. This may mean only 23,000 year round inhabitants. Lot's of money coming in from students for a small town.

By your logic Hobart and Merrillville are also suburbs?

To post 21: Distance is not the only piece of data showing proof that a town is a suburb or not. So no, Valpo is not a suburb. I suppose you think that Muncie is a suburb of Indianapolis. LOL

Less than 5% of workers from Porter county work in Illinois

http://www.stats.indiana.edu/dms4/commuting.asp

7.6% of Noble county workers work in Allen County. It's only 30 miles away. Does that make Kendallville, Albion, and Ligoneer suburbs of Fort Wayne? Don't think so Bub.

"so knife weilding jerk-off gets in my home and tries to rape my virgin hetrosexual booty and i have to take it? i dont think so. try that in my home."

Exactly, CavScout! I'll keep my .38 thank you very much. 'Cuz you know, when seconds count-the police are only minutes away.

Remember the 18 year old in Oklahoma? The police were 20 minutes away.......

Yeah, that was bad.