E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA gunman discovered on the University of Connecticut's Avery Point campus turned the gun on himself after hours of negotiating with police. NBCNews.com's Dara Brown reports.
A standoff with an armed man at the University of Connecticut in Groton that forced the evacuation of the campus is over after the man committed suicide, according to local reports.
Police had been negotiating for hours with the man, who had crawled beneath a dock on the premises.
“As the subject was pointing the weapon towards himself and towards others,” Connecticut Police Lt. Paul Vance said, “troopers deployed less-than-lethal equipment in an effort, again, to disarm the subject. Again, it was not successful.”
They attempted to stop the gunman by talking to him on his cell phone and tried to distract him by using bean bags, flash grenades and a tactical vehicle, NBCConnecticut.com reported.
The man’s family had called Groton, Conn., police around 5 p.m. Monday, saying he was despondent and armed, police said. A few hours later, he drove his Jeep onto the university campus.
Police spotted the gunman just after 10 p.m. ET Monday, threatening to hurt himself.
At around 2:15 a.m. ET, police said they had set up a perimeter around him.
Police ordered an emergency evacuation of the entire campus, and a brief emergency alert was sent out and posted to the university’s website.
“He doesn’t appear to be a threat to others, but we want to secure his safety,” University of Connecticut spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said during the standoff.
Police said the man was 30 years old, and they won’t release his name until the family is notified.
A group of high school students was on the campus for a summer program, but the students remained in another building on the opposite side of campus during the standoff. Reitz said very few people were believed to be on campus because of summer vacation.
The school reopened at 8 a.m. ET Tuesday, but the investigation continues.
NBC Connecticut and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Theater massacre suspect appears in Colorado court
- Past aids Aurora response, but were warnings unheeded?
- Aurora shootings: 911 dispatcher recalls night of horror
- 'Goat man" spotted in Utah mountains
- 'We will remember' rampage victims, shocked Aurora vows
- At least 13 killed in Texas pickup truck crash
- Video: How easy is it to get assault weapons?
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
This will never end, it will only get worse and become even more common. Too many crazy people and too many guns.
Maybe you're right...lets take all of the guns away. Even from the police...because there have been dirty cops or cops who kill innocent people. No one will have guns... Remember the London Riots? The police couldn't do anything and civilians couldn't either because they were unarmed. Ever hear of the murders in Mont Vernon, NH where the husband was away???? They didn't use guns...but a gun would have saved Kimberly Cates' life...
Even while the non-threat has been contained, it would really suck to also be in the container with no way to defend myself.
@Hoodie, thanks for the second half your your statement, further proves ignorance of people. People can make the argument guns kill people, but people were killing people BEFORE guns. If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way. Stones, Bow/Arrow, Pencils, Their fists. Guns have saved my live several times both on duty and off. And just because I have a gun doesnt mean I pull it every chance I get. Most gun owners know about levels of escalation, proper usage, and when deadly force is authorized. MOST DO KNOW THIS. just our awesome government owned media wants you to think otherwise so they can sign more gun laws and in the end become the next Nazi regime. My 2nd amendment, helps ensure your first amendment right.
yeah Simmons, I'm sure that shooter in Colorado would have killed just as many had he walked in there armed with just his fists or a big ole' bow and arrow. Good arguement.
As many guns as there are people and growing in numbers. If you own blood stock--insurance companies, oil, guns. defense contractors, your portfolio looks good, but at the misery of others.
@Sheila Considering he had 30 'sophisticated' explosives, im sure he coulda just bombed the theater and killed more if he wanted... your argument thereby is proven invalid.
Ssmimmon117, You go! Exactly right! I don't own a gun, because to be honest, they scare the everloving piss out of me. But I pray to God if I am ever in the position of those poor people in CO that someone there is not as much of a wimp as I! 65,000,000 million gun owners did not kill people last night go figure.
So let's recap: We have banned Sugar, it makes you fat. We have effectively banned free speech, Obama doesn't like your answers. We have banned Chrisitian holiday celebration, Jews get all offended. Is there anything left to ban. Oh yea, Spoons because they too make you fat. And Cars, because cars kill more people than guns. Welcome to the stone age America!
Being anti gun doesnt make you a wimp, my man! Wimps only want to influence the rights of others! Be strong in your belief! Think we should ban hugh hefner for promoting visual infidelity?
congratulations. Msn wanted that reaction and in a bug-brain jump, you came through.
Lol, your second amendment helps protect your 1st! What a load of brain wash. if the government comes after you because they just went full oppression on the people, nothing at all that you keep in your house will stop the US Army from coming at you and taking your gun from you no matter what your condition.
The defense of freedom excuse is a total sham. The 5th and 14th amendments do their fair share of protecting the 1st as well, but you wont mention those because they dont involve you holding a gun that would be useless in defending against the military.
Of the possible weapons listed to take the place of guns if they where banned, none of them offer the ease of use, efficiency, safety to the purp as a gun dose. People who use guns to kill have them for the same reason people have them for defense. Because Unlike a bomb, knife, fist, or just about any other lethal weapon they are safe to use easy to use and offer efficient means of killing people.
You can have your guns if it makes you feel safer, but in the theater shooting it likely would have made no difference in the outcome, and in a crowded smoke bombed theater someone packing in there would have likely hit an innocent and made the situation worse.
I don't know about you idiots, but i think i would rather someone come after me with a pencil, rather than a gun.
Keep drinking the kool-aid, morons.
In the land of the blind...the one eyed man is king. In the land of the outlawed firearm...the outlaw is king. Are you sure that's what you fools want?
Really? Go to some southern hunter's house and tell them you are gonna take his gun away, and see what happened. If the army came to do it, only about half would follow that order.
I doubt the army would follow an oppression order at all. Lets be clear here, nothing you or a farmer has will stop An M1A1 or even an armored car. Please don't think that in the 21st century that your toys keep the commanders in the Pentagon up at night. The Army could disarm most people in the US with not much loss to it's self, so please, no "we need guns to protect our freedoms"
To protect your freedoms you utilize your rights. Such rights as voting can be far more powerful then any gun you have in your house at changing government that is not acceptable to you.
I always hate to see the idiots come out of their closets when a tragedy like this comes about. Ah but it is inevitable that the ban everything let the government rule our lives types just can't think rationally about their viewpoints or those of others. All they can think about is something that is banned can't possibly hurt anyone anymore... They never think that criminals don't listen to a ban and only law abiding citizens do, they don't think that the mass millions of armed citizens in fact can and will protect this country and are by far and away the biggest army in the world, bigger than China's in fact. So if the proverbial @!$%# does ever hit the fan our public is the biggest army in the world and yes many of our military just as you see happening in other countries would not take up arms against their own families but would instead bring their weapons to the people. Bans do not work just look at Chicago's murder rate, thugs have guns law abiding citizens don't... it didn't work so well, crime is up as usual where gun bans are. So back to the subject at hand.. This tragedy had no other possible outcome as anyone set on doing anything will achieve their goal, gun or no gun so please have a clue.
WHY does anyone need an assault rifle. How many times in a minute do you need to shoot that deer, if you are that bad a shot don't go hunting. WHY does anyone need armour piercing bullets? Only criminals need these type of weapons so let's make them illegal and ban their sale.
There was a story on the news last week about a guy who got shot defending his home. There was a crash at his front door, he grabbed his gun, second crash, there was a man standing in his doorway wearing black and carrying a gun. He opened fire. The guy standing in his (now broken) doorway returned fire and killed him.
When the bullets stopped flying the guy who'd been defending his apartment was dead, and the cops (that's who the guys in black were) found out they not only had the wrong man, but also the wrong apartment. It came out that a motorcycle thought to belong to a suspected robber was parked in this guy's apartment parking space. The cops saw the motorcycle, assumed the apartment number on the space was where the robber lived, and broke in without checking on the motorcycle's plates and registration (which would have showed the real robber was a few doors down.)
Because the robber was considered armed and dangerous, they did not identify themselves as cops prior to breaking in, because if they did it would give the guy a chance to start running. So they were following procedure and their explanation for the incident is that 'it was the victim's fault for shooting first.'
Hoodie
I have no problems with owning guns, and I have no problem defending myself. The problem is not the laws, its not the guns.. its the emotions of people. However, your comment
"Too many crazy people, too many guns" ....
I must admit is a completely true statement, and the emotional response you are getting is really not warranted, because you didn't blame the gun you blame the crazies WITH A GUN. yet the fact remains... there are still too many of both. And this statement can be true without the purpose to take guns away from law abiding citizens, or restrict what they own, but there needs to be a process to remove the guns away from the criminal/crazy element and restrict them from buying off the shelf whatever they need.
What world to anti-gun idiots live in?
Yes guns are dangerous in the hands of a nut job. So is a car. And you're much more likely to be hurt in a car than by a nut bag with a gun. You're more likely to win the lottery than be hurt by a nut bag with a gun.
And to the idiot that is going to say, "Talk about your statistics to all the people that have been killed with guns", my response is, "What about the many more people that are killed every day in car accidents? If we are so concerned about guns, we need to be more concerned about cars"
There is no guarantee of perfect safety. I wouldn't want to live in a country where big brother had so much control that they could predict and stop horrific incidents like these.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." There is nothing the government can do to stop stuff like this without taking away more freedom than I'm willing to give. Tragedies are part of the human experience.
Sheila, to your comment, remember the Aurora shooter also had his apartment booby-trapped with gasoline bombs (which he also could have used in the theater). Should we outlaw gasoline, too?
If a person wants to kill, whether he's sane or not, he will find a way. Holmes had every intent to kill as many people as possible. I'm sure if he did not have firearms, he would have found another way, and would have been just as deadly.
The stress' in life can really make people give up. Some people just can't be saved. It's always sad to hear of someone taking their own life. There is always help available, somewhere. Just sad. RIP
There used to be a ban on them--it lapsed in 2004 and was never reinstated.
Early on in his administration, President Obama tried to introduce an initiative requiring gun dealers to report sales of assault weapons and assault-type weapons, particularly in bulk sales. It was supposed to combat the epidemic of guns that were being purchased in the US, taken apart and parts smuggled over the border, reassembled on the other side and used by the cartels to shoot innocents and Border Patrol, and was originally supposed to be implemented first in the border states then on to the rest of the country.
The NRA lobbied against the initiative, saying it was the government wanting to know what you had and how many so they could take them all away. The initiative failed.
I saw a documentary on TV where a reporter asked a dealer in El Paso Texas if he was for or against the initiative, the dealer said he was against it because it would cut into his profits--if people knew he was required to report it, he wouldn't get orders for bulk purchases, they'd go somewhere else. When asked if he was at all worried that the 12 Bushmaster hunting rifles he'd just sold (in a single transaction) might be used to kill a child in Mexico or a US Border Patrol officer in a couple hours, the dealer shrugged and said it wasn't his problem.
If it came down to it, I'd much rather be shot that stabbed, or cleaved into chunks with a battle axe.
@QE173 : A gun or several might not help you, but would do someone like me a world of good. Besides, what sort of half-wit would sit around home waiting for the army to show up at their door in the first place?
Yeah, well, neither did those "Jews" you were railing against. And nobody banned your "Christian holiday celebration". You are perfectly free to go to church and have it at home or in any private venue you want across the U.S.A.
too many people, not enough guns , if'n u ask me .
Sure ban guns, let the crazies learn to equip themselves with homemade explosives and run into a large crowd. I can assure you it's quite effective in the middle east. Stop the tunnel vision folks. Take away the constitutional right for the common man to bear arms, and start a civil war.
The technology is already here.
The Department of Homeland Security is currently testing (in an 'undisclosed location' in the Northeast) a system they call 'Future Attribute Screening Technology', FAST, which will scan a person as far as 50 feet away for changes in body temperature, respiration, heart rate, eye movement and other factors to determine if they are acting in a suspicious manner. Agents watching the scanners can then direct ground agents to arrest the person befoe they can commit an illegal act. Early tests utilizing DHS employees who were told to act a certain way indicated hat the machine was 70% accurate in detecting persons who were told to act suspiciously.
DHS is going to utilize FAST in airports and public areas/venues nationwide to figure out who is nervous or acting suspiciously--the FAST system utilizes retina scanning, infrared, x-rays, pulse and respiration monitor, so someone out of breath with pulse pounding and eyes shifting around rapidly is certainly about to commit an illegal act. If you have a machine that tells you that someone will commit a crime, then you can arrest them and put them in jail before they commit that crime, which could serve to wipe out most obvious types of crime right away. FAST can be used on buses to predict which passengers will cause a disruption and transportation officers can meet the bus at the next stop, taking the potentially disruptive passenger away to jail; can be used to tell which businessman walking into a diplomatic session will be carrying a briefcase bomb. There will be no more chances for assassination plots like 'Operation Valkyrie' and of course no more 9-11, unless the one committing the illegal act has trained themselves to act normal and can control their physical responses enough to appear calm and beat the scanner. After all, the scanner has 70% accuracy!
Anti gun policy doesn't work, AND WE DON'T WANT IT!!! When will you idiots get it through your heads. I know its sounds bad, but I would rather have a nut with an AK-47 than trying to figure out another way. You know why? Because that devil in CO would have blown the place up or started a gas fire if he didn't have that gun, and more would have been killed. I know that sounds bad, but how many guns did Timothy have in Oklahoma. How many???
This, THIS THIS!!!, A million times THIS!!! If the liberals were some how able to magically make all guns go away, how do they expect it to fix the minds of people that want to kill people? Any idiot can build a bomb. Guns are a far better alternative. If more people were packin heat, these nut bags could be taken down before they killed to many people. If they had a bomb, then it's a one shot thing. 100 people dead with no chance to fight back.
it should be illegal not to own a gun because the government or the cops cant protect you 100 % of the time
The problem with that is, that the government doesn't have the right to arrest a person before they do something illegal. Which is as it should be.
How many law suits would there be from "false positives"? Somebody gets a phonecall letting them know that a loved one just died, how many physiological responses would there be that matched somebody about to do something bad? A lot.
Siestasis,
Who needs armor piercing bullets? What was the Colorado shooter wearing?
I really wonder if this is even true!!! It is very easy for officials, or the government to create a story! After all, the UN small arms treaty is to be signed next week! I would bet money on it that this is a CIA operative, or that they just killed the janitor, and placed an unregistered gun in his hand....and "abracadabra"...instant fear propaganda! Now we can all support the signing of the UN treaty! I call bullSh*t!!!
Siestasis....keep in mind thaere are "fully-automatic" (which are illegal, to civilians)...then there are "semi-automatic"...which fire ONE SHOT...not many as you think! here is info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX1unD9xbeg
It looks pretty clear that this guy didn't want to live anymore and preferred for someone else to do it for him. When the police kept showing him that they wanted him alive (yet numerous times failed with their tactics- need a bit more training guys) he had do go it on his own.
So did the gun do it- technically his life ended with a gun, but it wasn't the root cause. He wanted out, period. He wanted it quick and as painless as possible, so a gun could do that. If he didn't have a gun, in Groton he'd likely have jumped from a bridge or idled his car in a garage. I think he really just wanted an instant death.
Is the gun to blame, no. Get real.
Holy goodness, I am dumber from reading some of these posts. You do realize that if you ban guns then those that legally own guns would lose them. then the criminals would be the only ones with guns. So with that in effect, when you get jacked, shot at, home invasion, raped or assaulted it will be by someone that appreciated your ignorance of "get rid of all firesarms". How does that sound you oxygen thieves? Just curious.
Unreal. Karma will bite you in the end.
This story has a happy ending as they all should: ignorance dies quickly!
Sad to see anybody take their life. As wrong as he might have been, he was somebody's son, and maybe a father. Sounds like he was cornered with no alternatives. Sometimes life just grinds you down.
A "spinner right between the eyes" would have solved a lot of issues like this.
"The problem with that is, that the government doesn't have the right to arrest a person before they do something illegal. Which is as it should be."
Spencer, are you unaware of, or forgetting about all of the clauses placed in the last National Defense Authorization Act that was almost unanimously voted "for", by the house and senate, passed, and then signed into law?
Wow !! at least he shot his own deranged window licking ass ! We wont have to hear about it for months on end from the Media. Save a little tax money.....if only it would end like this more often .
Amanda,
Unfortunately, the guy pointed a gun at a cop. The cops had the wrong house (found out after the fact) and were faced with a man wielding a gun pointed at their faces.
Yes, it's terrible that an innocent man was shot, but he pointed a gun at the police officers, whom they suspected was a robber. Come on.
If I am a police officer, and I kick in the door of a suspected armed and dangerous bank robber and find the man pointing a gun in my face, I am not going to have a friendly conversation with him.
The problem there is, HOW did the cops wind up at the wrong place? NOT that the cop shot a man that was pointing a gun in his face.
Based on your stats, Amanda 3 out of every ten people that will be tagged by FAST will be innocent and harmless. I'd rather put my money on an officers training and experience.
Guys... the gun debate is out of control.
Here are my thoughts on guns:
#1: people own them to hunt. That's fine by me, I've known plenty of hunters, as long as they do the background and criminal checks, I believe they should own them
#2: Civilians should NOT possess weapons that are used by the military. There is no need for a citizen to have what the shooter in the theatre had. He had a gas mask (maybe? depending on the reason, civilians would need one, for jobs, or something around the home I guess), he had gas canisters (why in the world would you need a gas canister), he had an assault rifle that (I believe) shot 200 bullets in a few minutes (why in the world does a civilian need an automatic weapon that shoots that many bullets at a time), he was wearing bullet proof armor (again, why do civilians need bullet proof armor)
#3: The shooter was able to obtain ALL of these items in one month... in ONE MONTH this man purchased gas mask, bullets, automatic weapons, gas canisters etc. I mean... really?
#4: I don't think I will ever own a gun, but I understand people wanting to protect their homes, so pistol permits or whatever for protection I agree with even though I can't relate
#5: Why does a civilian need a concealed weapons permit?? My only thought is if you would need one to take the gun from your house to a shooting range, or to put it in the trunk of your car to go hunting... however, concealed weapons permits for people that just feel like walking down the street with a gun? I don't see any reason for that.
Dar, agreed. This was a very unfortunate circumstance explained by Amanda, but I don't fault the police for shooting. They kicked in the door and found a man pointing a gun in their faces.
I fault the question of, how did they end up with the wrong guy at the wrong house? That's the problem, not the fact that the cop felt that he had to shoot a suspected armed bank robber who was already pointing a gun in his face.
Srich...
Really? Sigh. They are trying to stop the right for people to own totally out of control weapons that no civilian should have any reason for. If you were to hunt with some of the weapons or gas cans etc., the deer would be obliterated.
No one is trying to stop the "right to bear arms". They are trying to make it less likely that the WRONG weapons get into the hands of the WRONG people...
Like... hmmmm... WHY is this guy buying all kinds of stuff, including bullet proof armor in one month? Let's do a looksee.
Doesn't sound like civil war to me.
SIESTASIS
Automatic weapons built after 1986 are not legal to sell to citizens. Quite a few state laws also disallow the ownership of automatic weapons. These "assault rifles" you mention are semi-automatic. A lot of people own them because they are ergonomic, "tacticool", fun as a range toy, have many aftermarket stuff to play around with, and can be used to clear varments.
Also, the government has a strict guideline on the definition of armor piercing bullets and anything a civilian can own is not classified as armor piercing by federal law.
Also Amanda, according to FAST, I'm screwed. I have an anxiety disorder that sometimes causes me to begin to panic in very crowded spaces. The signs that FAST would scan for (increased heart beat, sweating, elevated breathing etc.) would have me shot and killed in an instant if I am starting to panic for no other reason that being in a crowd of people.
Do you have any links to the FAST? I'm only asking because it sounds a bit conspiracy theorist, but you might have proof to back up what you've heard.
FAST would totally shoot me at an airport. I'm surrounded by people I don't know, trying to figure out checking my luggage, worried about my shoes, worried about making sure I have everything from the security point... my anxiety would have me killed in an instant, and I bet this FAST thing would be implemented as part of airport security to find "suspicious people". Hopefully they can scan my records before they kill me and see that I have an anxiety disorder.
Spencer; they call it civil detention instead of arrest, but yes,they can.
Whiskey Eye; on paper, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and intent is needed to prove guilt. But that's not actually how it works, not for Homeland Security.
I was adopted internationally as an infant, never told before Dad and Mom passed away in a car accident. 18 years after the adoption, USCIS finds they lost my adoption paper and came to me saying 'papers, please'. I said 'what papers?" and they took me in on a civil detention retainer.
I was never arrested, because no illegal acts were committed. I was brought here legally, adopted legally, all paperwork was filed and fees paid. It wasn't illegal for me to have not been told I was adopted; it wasn't illegal for me not to have the paper. It wasn't illegal for the government to have lost the paper. There was no intent to defraud the system, and I had never been in trouble with the law, had just graduated high school (private schools my parents paid for) on the honor roll and was on my way to art college to become a police sketch artist when I was detained.
However, because the government lost a piece of paper I was detained for three years. They couldn't deport me because I was undocumented/stateless prior to my adoption--an infant abandoned at an orphanage with no original birth certificate, and thus no home country--so they simply told me that I would remain in deportation until I gave them a copy of the adoption paper. I was 'guilty' until I proved I was innocent--and I had to prove it while sitting in a deportation camp. I spent three years writing to every courthouse in every state we'd ever lived in until I found that paper before they let me go. Everything I had--all my school papers, belongings, were seized as civil asset forfeiture and the deportation camp in which I was detained was called 'Ritmo' by human rights activists because they said it reminded them of Gitmo/Guantanamo Bay. Food deprivation, sleep deprivation, unsanitary conditions, physical and sexual abuse and rape were common.
I learned from this that the only rights you really have are the ones the government allows you to have, and they can be taken away.
.
Rereading the FAST post actually terrifies me now. Instead of waiting for backup, I'm going to research it because I don't believe that at all.
#6
Well, maybe they will announce it so that I can never leave my apartment again. I will probably be arrested everywhere. Part of getting the panic under control is starting to deep breathe etc. This is nuts.
He had no idea they were cops. They did not announce that they were police before breaking down his door; their procedure specifies they didn't need to announce they were LEOs before breaking in because calling 'Police! Open up!' might alert the dangerous robber to start running.
Both sides used the 'shoot first, ask questions later'. Problem was that an innocent man lost his life thinking he was protecting himself from intruders and the people who took that life will most likely not be charged because they were just following procedure.
Per the original post:
...a motorcycle thought to belong to a suspected robber was parked in this guy's apartment parking space. The cops saw the motorcycle, assumed the apartment number on the space was where the robber lived, and broke in without checking on the motorcycle's plates and registration (which would have showed the real robber was a few doors down.)
Amanda,
Then I'm not sure why you brought this story up? I don't fault the cops for shooting someone that pointed a gun at them (and it sounds like might have shot at them first). Yes, he didn't know they were cops, but they WERE. They also didn't have to announce that they were police, so they weren't at fault. Sounds like a tragic accident that could have been avoided by scanning the plates of the motorcycle.
I don't think the police should be charged at all, if anything, an investigation as to what SHOULD have been done with the motorcycle should be conducted, whoever is at fault for that should be questioned, sanctioned, or whatever.
What's your point?
FAST - "Able to detect 70% of people told to act suspiciously"
What is acting suspiciously? If you have a bomb or weapon on you while trying to board an airplane, that's a crime. Being 'suspicious' is not and it doesn't matter anyway. TSA is NOT about protecting us. It is about showing people that they are animals in this government's little human farm. If a terrorist wanted to commit an act of violence, all they would have to do now is walk up to a TSA checkpoint at a busy time of the day and set off their suicide bomb there. If they want to fly a plane into a building, they'd get a charter.
Patting down children, making you 'disrobe' - I was in the service and this is all called psy-ops. We did it to those people in other countries to let them know we were in charge without actually forcing the issue.
And...
Amy-3288571, you can get a gas mask at Home Depot, canisters online and the gun was an altered rifle that you can get at any gun store so long as you have a clean record. It wouldn't take a month to get that stuff, it would take a day and thank god for that because it is the only thing keeping these criminal parasites from taking every last thing that we have...it's the only thing keeping the police from just walking into our houses and rooting through our (sorry, their) property so they can drag another million or so people off to privatized prisons because they have a quarter oz of some 'ILLICIT' substance.
I swear people have been so dumbed down they drive functioning people mad. Don't ever give up your guns. It's the only thing keeping this country free *what?! You TRUST your politicians and handlers? What have they done to earn your trust? You trust your government that starts wars based on lies and doesn't really ever say anything about it once the truth comes out because - oh well - they do what they want and the people aren't the power in this country, banks are the power, military is the power, police are the power, ghetto welfare TSA agents who are feeling up my kids and have GEDs to get that job are the power - now people say let's give up our guns.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....just give everything you have to your overlords you spineless monkeys. But me - I want them to make tanks legal, 50 caliber automatic machine guns, grenade launchers, surface to air missiles...I'm building a moat
I concur 100%!!!
Try doing a Google search--I can't post links in my messages. My company has a biometrics division that does digital fingerprint scanning for employment applicants and we're looking into a government contract for retina scanner installers and techs--and that retina scanning was what led me to uncover DHS's FAST. I hated it and I told my boss so--I saw the movie 'Minority Report' and this just seems like we're taking a step down that road!
Yes, it was developed for use at airports, then depending on the success rate to other public venues like conventions, meeting halls, government buildings.
I did, it wouldn't let me post the link either, but it is on the Department of homeland security.
I'm not asking anyone to give up guns, I'm asking for regulations so that people can't have access to automatic weapons and what not. I don't know anymore. More regulations so that the military weapons stay with the military, and the gun lovers can keep the guns for hunting.
The hunters that I have known were taught to use guns since they were kids, that guns were not toys, etc. I don't believe in a broad sweep of no guns at all, I just believe in a way to stop making them more dangerous and having them wind up in the hands of the wrong people...
Like ordering rifles in bulk online without a background check. That could be a start..
Ibjonny, thank you. I don't know much about guns, so if the media calls it military style, I'm like... how in the world did he end up with that?? sounds like he altered it himself? His apartment was booby trapped with gasoline bombs as well, according to another commenter
the military is not going to turn on citizens, they are our sons and daughters. Period.
I would never let anyone take my granfathers guns away, he would be the first to protect YOU! Many thousands upon thousands are x-military holding guns, who ALWAYS believed in protecting the innocent.
thank god this man had enough love in his heart to not hurt any innocent bystanders....im sad someone could not help him, but his solo death, is about him, not anyone else. Not about guns either...weapons have been apart of human "instinct" since the beginning of time, and no matter how much you gun haters want to leave everyone unarmed, you need us! Tell me right now what house you would run to if there was a violent mob, rapist, or terrorist attack....the "man" you fear with guns, would be the first to save your damn life.
road,
The police did everything they could, too. They talked to him, tried to distract him to disarm him, but in the end, he ended it. I don't believe this is related to a gun issue, he was despondent and would have sadly met the same fate, in a different way.
Very sad when someone sees no way out.
Hey gun nuts, HEAR ME OUT:
No one, not even us liberals, want to see our 2nd Amendment constitutional rights disappear. What we vehemently advocate for is better gun control policies, NOT LAWS. The laws are the laws, they are in place for you to go and buy an entire armory if so you choose, but you have to admit that some people simply should not own weapons. In addition, why on Earth does anyone considered to be a civilian needs a fully automatic assault weapon?
Also, your arguments are completely baseless. In just about every massacre that's happened in this country in the last 20 years, NOT ONE BULLET was fired by the victims. You gun nuts always use the 2nd Amendment as a way to own weapons to defend yourself. By your standards, the CO massacre should not have occurred since, by your theory, the whole theatre should have been armed to the theet and the gunman shouldn't have stand a chance, yet again NOT ONE BULLET was fired from the attending crowd, and sadly, we all know the results.
Had we had better gun control policies in place SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE should have said.. "hmm... this dude has bought 6000 rounds of amo in the past 4 months, I wonder what he's up to?". But that did not happen either.
Furthermore, why owning a gun if you can't carry it into anywhere for the most part? Assuming your theory is correct, and just sampling the attendees to the movie theatre in Aurora, AT LEAST 1 person should have had a gun in their car, but could not bring it into the movie theatre. Do you see the irony? You own something to defend yourself and can't have access to it when you need it. RIDICULOUS!
Now, go and tell these poor suffering families about your gun touting experience and see how far it gets you.
Also, let's not be ridiculous... NONE OF YOU idiots with your guns would ever face off any military or police force. Are you out of your mind? You woudn't even stand a chance, assuming you even had the bravado to do so. So, so much for owning a gun to "defend against tirany". Your guns are causing enough bloodshed already. We need to stop this madness!
People want their guns. I'm not arguing with that. But part of being responsible about them (from my understanding) is to make sure of your target and only use it as a last resort to defend oneself. The guy in the story shot first and figured he'd ask questions later--and there was no 'later', he died!
I have no problems with people owning guns But there need to be some commonsense rules in place for those who own them. Shoot first and ask questions later is not a good rule--that gets you killed.
Just pointing out to people that if you are going to own a gun, get a side order of common sense to go with it.
Deep breathing with the FAST system will not get you looked at Amy. Quick, shallow breathing will. Also, the shooter in Colorado did not have any automatic weapons. He had a semi-auto assault rifle, which means it fires one shot per trigger pull. In other words, nothing like an automatic weapon.
Yes, as Amanda pointed out just above me, how the cops ended up at the wrong apartment was entirely on them. They may not be charged with anything but let's get real...I thought part of procedure was double/triple checking that you had the right dwelling/person of interest. That simple check would have taken all of 5 minutes for the police, most of that time walking over to get the plates to send to dispatch. Sorry but I find that to be a major failure on their part.
As far as the rest of this thread, I read it all. I am a liberal and I support gun ownership. I also can't believe what so many others are saying here.
If you sent the Army to take away my guns, you better believe I am not going freely. Forget that the Army may be on my side, if they take my weapons, I cannot defend my family against the myriad of criminals that will erupt when all hell breaks loose. I really don't think many of you recognize how fragile our society truly is. You really think your locked doors are going to keep people out who want to come in? Dead bolt locks actually make breaking down a door a bit easier, as a wooden frame will not stand up against the bolt. Where I live, it can take the police 20-25 minutes to get here, if not more. I live about 7 miles from maybe the most well known battlefield on United States soil...so it is not like I am the only human within those 7 miles. There are communities and houses all around me and it would take police that long to get here. I do not want to have to depend on them to ensure my safety. As the cop story shared here shows, they make mistakes and shoot the wrong people too. If you want to depend on them, good for you...I'd rather defend myself as a law-abiding citizen and help my neighbors if they are ever in need. Sorry those of you who disagree are so un-American and fail to realize it.
SanAndresMan...the reason no one was packing is because many movie theaters have "no gun" policies. In other words, even if you have a permit to carry, you are not allowed to on the theater property. While I understand some of your sentiments, it seems you are the one out of your mind. First off, again, the assault weapon in question was not fully automatic. Second, if anyone would have been allowed to carry in the theater, likely, the gun man would have not gone to that theater. Look at the gun violence statistics. Where people are allowed to carry, there simply are not criminals committing as many crimes. Where people are not allowed to carry, crime rates are up. Third, we have great gun control policies. Sadly, the guy that sold everything to this shooter didn't listen to his instincts.
People should read the bill of rights. The first ten amendments do not give you any rights whatsoever. They prevent the government from taking away the ability to do something.
@SanAndresMan
I am a liberal leaning independent gunowner who don't agree with everything the NRA says or is a member of. Ammo is cheap online and much cheaper in bulk. My range charges me $13 before tax for a box of cheap 9mm. I can find the same ammo online for around $8 a box in bulk and pay no taxes on it. I go to the range once a week and shoot about 200 bullets. That's 800 bullets a month and 3200 in a four month period. Quite a few people at the range shoot much more than I do and 6000 rounds of ammunition in a four month period is not a stretch at all.
The only place you cannot legally conceal carry a firearm are government buildings and private businesses that state they do not allow firearms. And just because someone is conceal carrying does not mean they are required to return fire when shot at. My gun instructor was very clear on this point.
Holmes should have been treated for mental illness just like the gunman from the Virginia Tech massacre. Stricter gun regulations would not stop these people as they were never diagnosed in the first place.
thank you britt carter- anti-gunners read it and weep
I have an 'assault rifle' AND armor piercing rounds. I am NOT a criminal but a tax paying, hard working member of this society. I am not a redneck and have many years of education beyond public.
I refuse to be a sheep to someone elses' slaughter, I have firepower because I can, and I will not be outgunned if it comes to that.
Our security is up to us, law enforcement is not obligated to protect anyone, via court order. Defend yourselves or be a sheep.
Lamb chops anyone? lol
mexico outlawed guns now only outlaws have guns how did that work out
@Desertmo:
What is the purpose of owning a gun if you are not going to return fire in a situation like Aurora, CO? Would you not have returned fire if you were being shot at?
@ibjonnyc -a person can own fully automated guns they just have to have a Federal firearms licence and pay an excise tax per gun every year you would be surprised to know how many people have them
http://www.atf.gov/
You do know that without also carrying a gas mask along with your weapon no civilian would have been able to get off a clear shot at the gunman in Aurora, never mind make any impact on his heavily armored person? It is unrealistic to think someone would have done more than piss the guy off and draw attention to themselves. There was too much tear gas.
What the heck is going on in our world? People are either killing other people or killing themselves. It's really getting out of hand! Are we all so stressed and/or depressed that all we can think of is violence to get through it? This is NOT working, and something needs to be done. Not sure our politicians give a damned, but they should!
Desertmo: NO, I would NOT have shot back in a crowded theater....besides, he was covered in body armor so what could you do? Have you ever heard of riccocheting bullets....you could have injured even MORE people in the theater by shooting back. Give me a break!!
Amanda
Just pointing out to people that if you are going to own a gun, get a side order of common sense to go with it.
Sounds good...unfortunately, there is no "common sense" test to go along with the 2nd Amendment.
You can have guaranteed "peace and safety" or you may have "privacy and freedom" the irony is you cannot have both.
I wish all of these suicidal nut jobs would either seek real help or kindly off themselves in the privacy of their own homes.
If life sucks there is no reason to pull others down with you. This especially is directed towards all those estranged spouses involved in custody battles. Taking away the life of the father/mother of your child or (God forbid) your children from this world is never justified, regardless of the hand you've been dealt. And it goes for the cowardly a-holes that want to shoot up a room full of strangers too!
This UConn gunman wasn't out to hurt anyone, but bringing his issues onto the campus may have caused people to be hurt. It's freaking Connecticut!!! There is plenty of forest where he could have gotten out of his house but been away from people and done the deed. It's one thing to try and off yourself, but why would anyone seek the attention of strangers in a public venue before they do it?
@SanAndresMan
Probably not. It's dark, full of tear gas, with panicking people running around. The first thing they teach you in a firearms class is always be aware of what's around and behind your target. If there's a chance I might hit anything other than my intended target, I'm not going to shoot. Then again, I've never been in such a situation so who knows what would have happened. I may freeze up or panic. When my fight or flight instinct kicks in, which do I do? It's not really a simple question for people who haven't had strict training.
I own guns because I enjoy accuracy shooting. It's the same thing with archery. Not everyone who owns a gun conceal carry.
There are some flies in that DHS ointment.... Here are just a few of them:
A few weeks ago I was in need of a toilet, REALLY had to "go", was out of breath because I was hurrying to find a toilet, was looking around rapidly like an alley cat trying to find a way out, and was definitely sweating. Had I been arrested by any DHS agents, I would have crapped my pants, not because I would be scared @!$%#less -- but because I REALLY HAD TO "GO"!!
Now think about how many people "just happen" to have problems with just being outside in public. Their heart rate goes up, they perspire, their eyes move around rapidly like that alley cat looking for a way out.... Yes, there really are people who are really scared of being outside in public -- yet THERE ARE TIMES WHEN MUST BE OUTSIDE IN PUBLIC.
How about people who are extremely nervous because they are LOOKING FOR THEIR CHILD? Yes, they WILL have that elevated heart rate, they WILL be sweating, they WILL be looking around like that alley cat looking for a way out.
Arrest people just because they MIGHT do something illegal? Welcome to the world of Minority Report, where you WILL be sentenced to life in prison just because you are "acting suspiciously"!
I'm sure that's what the Jews (and other minorities) who died in the Holocaust said about the German military too. "They are our sons and daughters, they won't turn on us."
Look at how that turned out.
And very few people remember that when the German SS started out, they were called the 'Saal-Schutz--Home Protection.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, usually. But with technology like FAST, the rather more obscure but also worrisome WAASS (Wide Angle Aerial Surveillance System--surveillance system mounted on the drones which are now legal in the skies over the US) the recent signing of the NDAA for FY2012, and its sister the upcoming Enemy Expatriation Act, which will allow the government to strip you of your citizenship if you're suspected of terrorism (and under the terms of the NDAA for FY2012, no trial or charges are needed) then detain you indefinitely as an illegal terrorist, it's kind of hard not to get just a tiny bit concerned.
Yes, hunting is a legitimate reason to possess and bear arms.
How about civilians who are legally allowed to collect such things? Or would you have ALL of the capability in ONLY the hands of the military? Plus, it so easy to convert any semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic weapon just by replacing one or two parts -- and it really is not all that difficult to make those parts, even in an apartment while using hand tools.
Well, if he was able to spend all that money, why not? Would it have been better if he had used fifteen bombs, all made with materials purchased in less than one month? Or how about if he had used just one semi-auto pump shotgun and worn home-made "bullet-proof" body armor and a home-made gas mask? Body armor and gas masks are also not all that difficult to make, and by using only items that can be found at any Menard's store.
That is your choice.
See your own point #4, above. Just so you know, there are very few places where a permit is actually required to transport a gun to/from a shooting range or to go to/from where you hunt. The way to do that without a permit is to simply remove the ammunition from the gun and keep gun and ammunition in separate places in your vehicle -- and we all know that an unloaded gun is useful ONLY as a blunt instrument, i.e., a club. Might as well just carry a rock in your pocket.
If I suddenly become despondent over something and a gun is sitting right there beside me, I might use it on myself, or on others, or I may grab it and the car keys and head out to try to do something about my situation. If that gun isn't sitting right there, there is no way in hell I'm going to go out and buy bomb making components and then build a bomb, all while in a despondent state.
If I am a criminal and have a gun, and I break into your house, I would be more likely to use that gun if I think that you probably have a gun too. If I think the odds of you having a gun are slim, I'm not going to be as eager to pull the trigger. And if I make my living by breaking into houses with my gun at my side, whether or not you have a weapon isn't going to stop me...and that would apply even if I don't have a gun myself. But I'm still going to try to break in, no matter what. It's what thieves do.
Handy guns make violence more likely, not less. It's a fact. Period.
If you want to stop the violence you're going to have to solve the socioeconomic reasons why crime pays in the first place. There is no other way. Handing out guns certainly isn't a solution, it's much more like a CAUSE.
None of that is going to prevent the madness of Aurora or UCONN. If you're nuts, you're going to find a way to get your twisted point across. At least the guy at UCONN only took his own life, which comes as a bit of a relief, these days...
Deep breathing might not get me detected by FAST, but any other anxiety symptom experienced certainly will. I don't feel like being arrested because I am feeling anxious in a crowd of people, not anxious because I am about to commit a crime.
FAST is abusrd.
Amy, it is NOT legal to purchase any guns in bulk, online or offline, without first going through a background check. You can't even purchase a gun at a pawn shop without going through a background check.
I may be mistaken about the online purchase thing. If I am, please provide a direct link to the website where people are able to make those bulk purchases without going through a background check. If you can't put up an html link -- just put up the URL. I'm betting there is no such website at all.
p.s., I have purchased more than three rifles in ONE DAY, but each rifle was purchased in separate transactions. It was not a bulk purchase, and each rifle was purchased offline. I still had to prove that I am legally allowed to have those rifles.
Phil... wow. Are you waiting for the zombie apocalypse or something? You're out of control.
@aquatone
Normal people do not become so depressed that they start thinking about killing random people and then acting on it. At least I've never thought about killing people when I get depressed, do you? This is a mental health issue compounded by anti-social behaviors (no safety net).
As to home break ins, if you're a cat burgler, you're stealthly breaking in at night and stealing as much as you can, you're not looking for a confrontation. Someone starts yelling for you to get out, you get out. If you're going in with a gun, then it becomes a home invasion, and someone is getting hurt no matter what. There was that story a couple months ago where a teacher killed her home invading attempted rapist with a .22lr pistol. You're basically saying the woman home alone should just let herself get raped.
Every crazy person with a gun should start with themselves when going on a shooting spree.
What kind of riot was this that no one could do anything? A lazy riot? Must've been pretty quiet.
@Amy:
Agreed. No argument there.
It's history lesson time... Back around 1620 a bunch of disgruntled English, fed up with the Church of England, set sail, and settled over here in "The Colonies". Fast forward to 1775 now. Those early settlers had built a pretty decent life for themselves, and the Brits knew it, and wanted as much profit as they could squeeze from "The Colonies". And The Colonies were not liking it. They work and work, and England just takes and takes, and takes some more, and then taxes, then taxes the taxes. Enough was enough, and The Colonies took up arms, beat the Brits back across the pond, and thus our Nation was born.
Those who had a hand in laying the foundation of our new nation were some pretty clever folks, and far greater Statesmen than either the DNC or GOP will ever be able to offer. One thing they realized is just how vital it is that the everyday citizen, the same sort of everyday citizen who had help drive off the Brits, be able to arm themselves (The Right to Keep and Bare Arms) - not so much to fend off wild animals, or hunt, or out of fear the Brits might return. No, they KNEW there could very well come a day when the new nation they had just founded might become as corrupt and tyrannical as the Brits they just had to put down, and they only way we ordinary citizens could do so would be To Keep and Bare Arms, so that in the event our bloated, out-of-control, opaque Federal Government becomes the "New England" we, private citizens could exercise our Right and our Duty to put as many bullets in the head of that diseased, corrupted abomination as it takes to put it down and rebuild our Great Nation.
So yes, those who demonstrate they are sound of mind and responsible of action should be able to carry the same sort of weapons as our soldiers, or preferably even better weapons than our soldiers, because when the time comes and we must put the Federal government out of our misery, we will very likely have to put down quite a few of our own in the process, else tyranny will be victorious and our nation will be lost.
No restrictions on buying bullets. You can buy as many as you like, as often as you like, and you don't even have to own a gun to do so. Likewise, "gas masks" are not restricted in any way. The "gas canisters" we simply do not know enough about - they could have been home made, or refurbished police or military devices. But again, there are almost no restrictions on tear gas either. As for the firearms - there's no real limit to how many one can buy, either at the same time, or over the course of days, weeks or months. So long as one passes the background check(s), you're good to go.
You say that, but when you're awakened in the middle of the night by someone in your home who does not belong there, or worse, you may very well change your tune.
There's quite a few reasons for civilians to have Concealed Carry permits. Here's a personal example:
At a former employer's, I was required to make bank deposits weekly. Often these deposits would be in excess of $10,000 or more. The bank where I made these deposits was in a very unfriendly area, the bank itself had been robbed 4 times, and person I replaced had been robbed as well.
I have a CCW, and I never had to be concerned for my safety nor the security of my former employer's assets. I wore (actually still wear) a Magnum Research Lone Eagle, chambered for .444 Marlin. It's a hugh hand gun, and very intimidating just to see. I never had to use it, though I did have to draw it once - when approached by a small group of younger (19-20-ish) wanna-be thugs. One showed me his knife, I drew my pistol, he unloaded in his pants. I kept all three face down on the ground until police arrived, with the simple promise that should any of them even so much as breathe funny I would spread all three of them over four blocks and the coroner would clean them up with a sponge for months.
Here's another example:
You're a woman, a good looking one at that, and not afraid to flaunt a bit of what you've got. You also happen, by no fault of your own, to live in the rape-capitol of the nation. You keep a compact .380 automag tucked into your bra strap. Should the unthinkable ever happen, do you want to be another rape victim, or would your rather blow your assailant's b@lls off?
And finally, example the third:
@sshole Cops - as it stands, not everyone can have a firing range in their yard or in their home, so one must often travel to places to responsibly enjoy shooting (or hunting). To get from point A to point B, one must transport one's self, weapons and ammunition. It can be a real hassle to stow one's guns in one part of the vehicle, clips in another and ammo in a third. Or sometimes we simply forget - leave a clip in, or a clip loaded, or whatever that causes one item to be a little too close to another, and suddenly you've got a major legal headache on your hands when you get pulled over doing 52 in a 45 without another sign of life for miles.
Every department out there has at least one, the @sshole Cop who wants to be a hero, and you're his one big bust that gets him off traffic patrol and into getting coffee for the guys in Vice. But with a CCW, you can keep your loaded firearms on your person, in your vehicle, or where ever your state permits them to be, and there's nothing @sshole Cop can do, so long as you do what is required (in my state, CCW holders are required to identify themselves to law enforcement as CCW holders and state if they are or are not armed when approached by law enforcement).
I could go on and on and on, but I hope I made my point.
Ahhh, another gun story... Not surprising. In this country, more and more guns is always the answer!
I respect our Founding Fathers, but this crap is getting ridiculous.
They should have a gunner's license. If you need to pass a test before you can handle a car, why not require the same for guns?
makes too much sense
I agree MJ,more guns is Not the answer.Since it's people who kill people, not guns then if one wants to own a gun,he or she needs to pass a full pyshological test before getting to own one.Public safety trumps 2nd Amendment.The British have come and gone.This right needs to mitigated with common sense, if your're are off your rocker then you have a gun to kill folks. Just because one has a right, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
This isn't about another gun. It's about another story - which sells advertising.
Doesn't anyone ever ask why these people do these things? It's always ban this ban that.Why don't we look for the cause and fix that? It seems everyone wants a quick fix whether it works or not. History is full of quick fixes that didn't work and complicates the problem and our lives. Lets get to the root of the problem and then and only then enact the solution. From the comments on here it's easy to see that most people are driven by their emotions and respond without any real thought. It seems that many of these shooters have the same problem.
Why is it, everyone assumes that this person or anyone buy's their guns through dealers. Some do, yes -but criminals, gang bangers, etc don't. Over 700,000 guns are sold illegally every year. Those are the one we need to stop. Too many crazies out there? Yes. The law doesn't give enough incentive to stop this behavior - we spend a lot of money every year to throw criminals in jail only to let them out so they do it again. Like years ago, you stole -you lost a hand. You stole again, you lost the other. No government aid, no handouts - the punishment has to be enough to stop people from doing it and right now it doesn't. In fact, it's a joke. Just like some western states who released 110 prisoners because they could afford to keep them in jail, including murderers. Make the prisoners work to pay for themselves. We have enough criminals, we needs a system to deter crime, not add to it.
@Art
We already know why they do these things.
Now how about we start making it difficult for these idiots to obtain their weapon of choice?
I wish these knee jerk reactions would stop. How many times do people have to tell you banning guns won't work?!?
So you ban guns. Everybody who is a law abiding citizen gives up there guns. Now here comes the criminal. A person who doesn't give a rats A$$ about the law. Do you honestly believe he is going to say to himself.."Hmmm, the law has changed. My gun is now illegal. I should turn it in." Heck no! He is going to keep his guns and use them to rob, rape or kill you. And then you, the law abiding citizen will have no way to defend yourself! The cops can't be there 24/7 to protect you.
I do believe that it should be illegal to buy guns online, because in those sales, people don't get to run that background check to make sure you aren't a criminal. But I believe everyone has the right and should be able to keep the right to bear arms...
That is all. Go ahead and bash me now.
@ Beanie1979
I agree about online sales only when it is a private sale. Many online firearm retailer requires you to go through an FFL in order to actually buy it.
I also agree on a shooter's license. I am a gun owner and I feel a mandatory test would improve gun safety and reduce gun negligence.
Where are the criminals getting their guns? Are they manufacturing them? Aren't many of the guns in the hands of criminals, in fact, guns stolen from lawful gun owners? What comes first, the chicken or the egg?
@beanie--
If only the criminals had guns, at least the law abiding citizens would know who's who! And even a criminal has got to sleep sometime.
Gun nuts in 3, 2, 1...
lol, too funny dude... you called it; perfect timing.
The nuts are too late. The irrational are all over this one.
Yea cause we all know Timothy McVeigh killed more people using fertilizer, more than a gunman could do
@jayman
Brilliant deduction!
Now let's start manufacturing guns and ammo at twice the rate and hand them out to our citizens at birth, Christmas, Halloween, and convocations.
Idiot.
Ignore TalkdeTalk for he or she is a schmuck!
Anti Gun, Government control my life, Ban everything bloggers 3.... 2... 1...
Listen my true Americans, DON'T listen to all this anti gun crap. Those people are not Americans, don't love their country, have never served with a rifle in their hand, and are just looking for their government to take care of them. They are not even worth responding to. The supreme court, our politicians, our people have already spoken up. GUNS ARE GOOD, period.
if the government ever wants to take over or kill us, they will do it with drones and f-16s. you will never even hear it coming. soldiers are all citizens with families and most of them would refuse invading their home town and killing civilians. it would be planes strafing your city like they do in iraq.
if you think otherwise, you are an abject fool.
There is an extreme amount of Mental Illness walking the streets of the United States.
Many have gone crazy, because in times like this, "The Economy"; no money to live on, no job, nothing to look forward to; people go over the top of violence, committing suicide to end their pain..
It happened in the Great Depression during the 30's. How many killed themselves?--there was no Global World through the Computer at that time--no connection; no getting info or research.
Guns?---they will be here forever--none of these acts are related to guns--it's drugs, screwy thinking, and no where to go--illegal drugs, illegal prescriptions are rampant today.
Why analyze the personality?---it is all speculation. This U Conn guy (Alma mater) was just another crazy person. What does analyzation solve--people are perplexed because we want an immediate answer. That is why there are Trials.
Yeah believer...we'd be strafed or destroyed in such a way that we would not be able to defend ourselves, however...what happens if you are a person who survives and your family needs protection from all the other people who managed to survive? That is what I want my guns for but thanks for being the fool here.
I do not understand why so many people speak so "matter of factly" but not be informed about the subject matter. In the past several days I have read some things that go from somewhat factual to completely baseless to downright paranoid and absurd.
Some of you Pro-gun guys really need to just think about it for a minute. Got your conceal carry? Good for you. I really wish you would quit telling people how you would take some one out with it because you have a right to defend yourself. The world around you should be a little bit safer because you are armed; not live in fear that they may fall prey to your giant ego. Incidentally, I read a comment in another news story where somebody said if they would've been there they would have shot the Aurora Colorado gunman in the head because he was wearing body armor. Really? I know a little something about combat environments. I want to meet the cowboy that thinks he can go from stress free to total combat chaos (in seconds), in the dark, from a distance probably over 30 feet, on un-even ground with tear gas in the room, acquire his (or her) target and hit said target, which is roughly the size of a gallon of milk and moving. Ooooo I wish you were in my classroom and spewed that out of your pie hole. You are the reason anit-gun lobbyist want me to give up my gun.
Anti-gun people, educate yourselves. Not with the media either. You want to feel safe, the media doesn't want that, safe just doesn't sell advertising space. Learn about the laws in place and how "easy" it is to actually buy a firearm. Maybe where you live it is too easy. Please, not what you've heard or what you've seen on TV. The law itself. Learn about guns and gun safety. I want you to feel safe and I agree with you, some people should not have guns.
I think perhaps we should enforce the laws that we have. Really enforce them. Prison isn't suppose to be inconvenient. It's suppose to suck. What we have right now are criminals who are inconvenienced because they have to go watch TV in the air conditioning. They have to do laundry and make dinner. My parents used to make my life inconvenient like that when I broke curfew. Meanwhile, in the name of justice and for the safety of the community I should surrender my firearm.
Okay, you anti-gun folks have won. Guns are now illegal, and all law-abiding people have turned in their guns. Now what? What is the plan regarding the remaining millions of weapons in the hands of those who didn't find it convenient to disarm themselves?
They will be used to insure that you are not only slaves but good slaves. Don't worry, it is all for your own benefit and safety.
They are? Since when? Was it announced on faux news and I missed it?
I find it funny that Libtards like Sam insult Fox News when MSNBC is just as bad for biased reporting.
Male, go figure, and his handle is Sam Adams. As in one of the patriots of Mass who would have loved the idea of being able to defend himself.
Unless of course it's the beer, and in that case I understand his stupidity. Drink on lefty loonie!
James Holmes was a registered democrat..look it up sam. Thats something the liberal media dosent want you too know
Is that what it is?
You caucasion gun-nut fools are paranoid about being enslaved?
Now it makes sense.
You basically enslaved all other races, and now that everyone is basically on an equal footing you're scared to death of having the tables turned on yourselves.
Got it.
Enslaved all other races stop begging!
@machspeeddeomon
The plan: Mandatory life in prison for any felony committed with a firearm. Mandatory 30 years for selling a firearm (or ammunition). Vigorous vigorous enforcement.
If, as in your scenario, all law-abiding people have turned in their guns (and by the way, if you didn't, you would no longer be able to call yourself law-abiding), accidental deaths (dropped weapons, guns in the hands of children, mistaken identity, etc.) would be reduced to near zero (we can assume that non-law-abiding types with guns would still have accidents). Death by firearms would be reduced by something in excess of sixty percent.
The downside: You may trampled to death by deer (there would, presumably, be a lot more of them).
The upside: No more NRA (no need for them anymore). That means, politicians wouldn't be genuflecting in that direction anymore and we just might see a more thoughtful and less-fearful congress. Probably not.
Why not a mandatory death sentence with no appeals process? The ultimate deterrent. Nope, can't have that in the land of the squeamish and pussified, now can we?
RTSOB... 65,000,000 lawful gun owners in this country did not shoot another human being last night. Death by automobiles could be reduced to "in excess of sixty percent" (not sure what orfice you pulled that number out of) if we banned automobiles. What about banning vaccines for children under 5. We could reduce deaths by 7.8 of every 1000.
Where do you draw the line? We don't live in eutopiaville. There are risks in most aspects of our lives. Stop falling victim to the media bias. All they want to do is get people rialed up so they can sell more of their "if it bleeds it leads" garbage.
lets defend ourselves with gummy bears you can eat them also
Independent Thinker (and, judging by your handle, you are only one of 3,381,326 - that's not what I call independent):
Automobiles are not designed nor intended for killing and injuring other living things - guns are.
Vaccines, similarly, are intended to relieve distress, not cause it. You have a logical disconnect.
Far more people are accidentally killed and injured by firearms than by intent. Those are the facts and even the NRA knows that. By the way, even when firearm assaults are committed, it's very often done by those who, up to that point, have no criminal history (ala: James Holmes). He was, by your reasoning and until he walked into that theater, a lawful gun owner.
"If it bleeds, it leads." In the newspaper/TV/radio world you live in, what would have been your lead story the morning after Aurora?
if the government ever wants to take over or kill us, they will do it with drones and f-16s. you will never even hear it coming. soldiers are all citizens with families and most of them would refuse invading their home town and killing civilians. it would be planes strafing your city like they do in iraq.
if you think otherwise, you are an abject fool.
RTSOB...I would follow the proceedures most major sport teams have put in place. Don't give the person that runs onto the field or starts a fight (or any future potential copy cat) television coverage. Report the facts (without names and pictures) and move on.
With respect to the gun issue...if you don't want to posses a gun then don't. Those that do have just as much right to their views as you do given the 2nd amendment as it stands today.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people whether it is with a gun, a bomb, gas, fire, knives, rocks, fists etc. This is a people issue not a tool issue.
Independent Thinker: Your report of the incident in Aurora would have included all the facts excepting the name of the shooter? And when he stands for arraignment and trial, don't you think his name would be learned at that time? Do you think the relatives of the victims would want to know who did this? I do. That kind of reporting makes no sense. As you correctly pointed out earlier, " We do not live in Eutopiaville" I would like to think, however, we live in Logicville.
With respect to the gun issue, I have no desire to repress your right to the expression of your view. Like millions of others, I beg for a logical interpretation of the second amendment.
And, since you trot out a tired aphorism ("Guns don't kill people, people kill people"), let me post one of my favorites: "You are entitled to your own opinion (view), but not to your own facts."
While the anti-gunners are busy banning guns because "they kill" (?), make sure they ban cars, airplanes, knives, poisonous snakes, tobacco, alcohol, prescription pills, etc... because "they kill too".
The difference is that is not their intended purpose.
Oh, well then, no CRIMINAL would ever use them as such because that isn't what they were built for. By the way, let's ban computers so I don't have to worry about being hacked.
How about we just ban stupid people, like yourself? I'm thinking that solves all our problems.
Or do you really want to have a serious conversation about nuts and their guns?
Sam Adams,, alwase a bad choice.
You forgot scissors...people running with those....my my....
if the government ever wants to take over or kill us, they will do it with drones and f-16s. you will never even hear it coming. soldiers are all citizens with families and most of them would refuse invading their home town and killing civilians. it would be planes strafing your city like they do in iraq.
if you think otherwise, you are an abject fool.
Intended purpose is just another game played by the control freaks. Knives can be just as deadly and I have heard that in the UK, swords are now being regulated because the criminals turned to them due to the gun ban. Rope or string is even better, quiet, not messy at all and the victim blacks out after a couple minutes.
Motor vehicles can be used to kill, easily, we have had many people shot by law enforcement when the perp uses their vehicle to try and injure them. Doesn't mean we ban them.
Intended purpose is smoke and mirrors, the intended purpose of anything, made to kill or not, is in the hands of the wielder. If an object has a use as a tool of death, it will be used as such. I have tools of death (firearms), but I do not massacre people with them and I am not a criminal either.
Self control is in the hands of the individual, not the do gooders who think they can restrict and legislate people to such an extent that people are forced to 'behave'. This rarely leads to people's happiness but enslavement to their every whim.
You're right Phil. Intent and interpretation of intent are the key. I carry a pocket knife...I have for many years. A while back I was pulled over for a "routine" traffic stop and was asked if I had a weapon on my person. I replied that I did not because the knife in my pocket is a tool, not a weapon. The officer saw the knife clip on my pocket... Long story short, he threatened to arrest me for making a false statement to a law enforcement official. He saw the knife as a weapon, while in my eyes, it is a tool. His interpretation of intent was far different than mine. We managed to resolve this when I noticed a similar knife clip on his pocket. When he couldn't explain the difference between his reason for carrying a knife and my reason, as they were both tools, he sent me on my way.
Apparently he didn't get the memo that noone would be there...lol
How does "man with gun" translate to "Gunman" on the MSN front page?
Getting ridiculous doesn't begin to cover it. I don't know what the laws are in Connecticut or at UConn, but a "man with a gun" is not only NOT a crime in Virginia, unless that person is in the process of committing some other crime, it is nothing at which to even bat an eye.
Really?...so, a man seen with a gun on a college campus is an every day occurance in Hooterville?
No, it is just nothing to get your lily-white panties in a bunch over.
"secure his safety" thats police talk for "waiting for an open shot".
Thank God the guy wasn't driving a pickup truck...!
When the mere sight of a gun causes people to panic,society is doomed.
Where's the rest?
Sight of a gun, on a man, on a college campus, where they are not to be.
See how the rest of the story kind of takes the wind out of your stupid comment.
Now go take your meds. Idiot.
Obnoxious no wonder you think you know it all! You go take your meds schmuck!
How can this happen? The northeast has the most strictest gun control laws except Vermont, where there is little crime.
Oh Vermont has it's crime. Unfortunately, bitch slapping each other "Oh no you didn't boyfriend" doesn't make it to the news.
Justeen, you are just too cool for school honey!
Now just having one is a crime?...why is everyone buying into this stupidity?...Is the person just walking around or are they threatening someone? Is the gun for there own protection?...What a bunch of drama queens.
If he was a sane law abiding gunowner he would have calmly identified himself to the police. He would have waited patiently while they did a wants and warrant check. When the all clear was given he would have gotten his gun back. The police would have said: "Have a good rest of the day.". He would have said: "You also.". Each would have gone on their way.
You idiots...The man was seen on a college campus with a gun. What do you not get? How many stories of campus shootings do you have to read before you understand this might present an issue?
StephenW, so every person whom enters an empty stadium with a gun is a potential convict to you? I am gonna guess you don't get out much do you?
Gun laws differ from state to state stephen, you can actually carry on public schools, parks. The only place i know you cant carry are federal buildings, airports?
@Justeen
Potential convict? Where did you read that?
How about it's probably illegal to carry on that campus, which warrants authorities to investigate?
And i'm thinking that since the gentleman didn't surrender to police immediately, that perhaps the call was warranted?
Such stellar thinkers in this country. No wonder we're doomed.
What people are failing to mention....His family called and reported him as despondent and armed. that would be probable cause for the police to investigate. Make sure all the facts are brought into the argument.
Let's stop giving these "nut job's" their 15 minutes of fame whether they are dead or alive. No more naming them or showing their pics in the media!
What diff does is make? Everyone still knows who they are. The deal is to forget them in the long run and remember the names of the victims. It's always the criminals people remember and they know that.
I didnt know the guy on that campus was a nut-job and wanting any fame? Is that liberal logic?
His family called police to notify them he was despondent and threatening to harm himself. He drove himself onto the Avery Point Campus and police found him on a seawall threatening no one but himself. Despite non-lethal efforts AND a negotiator's efforts, he turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. This is per our local CT news stations.
Ahhh but this still mean guns shouldn't be in our hands, he may still be alive! (I hope the sarcasm is evident here)
If we ban all the guns, it'll only make it easier for the nutjobs to do this as they know the good people will be defenseless. Police are always minutes away... Best defense is for good people to be trained and carry weapons. I carry all the time and sleep next to one... Anyone coming to harm me or my family has another thing coming.
What a sad, pathetic life you must lead.
StephenW
Hardly sad or pathetic. It's actually prepared and aware.
I also carry and have used my firearm to assist an elderly man being kicked mercilessly by a pack of "youth".
After I intervened they ran like the vermin they were, I'll surmise they understood the futility of bringing fists and feet to a gunfight. I called 911 and was informed they already knew and Patrol units are on the way. They arrived about 10 minutes later.
Well, thank dog for you!...and what would the fallout have been if you discharged your weapon and accidentally hit an innocent?
StephenW
If I discharged my firearm, a dirt bag(s) would be dead. Any more questions?
You you prefer I sit and watch an elderly man get kicked to death? Would you like for someone to do that for you or a member of your family and then give the police the descriptions of the low lifes?
I also carry and not once on7 years have I had to draw my gun.(thank god) But it gives piece of mind to me and my family knowing we are safer than if I didn't carry. Hopefully nothing bad will ever happen to StephenW but if it does, I'm guessing he would be the first to cry " Why Me "!
Nice avoiding the question. If you shoot your gun to help another and hit an innocent...what is the fallout?
Schoolyard, (appropriate name)...If you ever met me, you wouldn't ask that question. I'm one of those who doesn't need a gun when confronted by bad people.
schoolyard
Like you I have carried for years. Unlike you, I have upholstered to assist someone. I very seriously hope I never need to do so again, but in the eventuality I do, I AM prepared to if necessary.
I can appreciate the sentiments of those who abhor firearms. What many of them don't like to think about is that the bad people in society don't care about laws or civility towards others. What many don't realize is that the young veteran and his son in the grocery checkout, the professional in the suit at the coffee shop, or the young mother wheeling her infant down the street might very well be armed. It's NOT a "macho" thing, or a means to "feel big and powerful", rather, it's a means to protect their families, friends neighbors and themselves from those who don't have the same moral compass. A firearm is nothing more than a tool to keep ones loved ones safe from harm. Unless someone is a family member or a very close friend, no-one will ever know I carry unless it becomes a necessity to draw to prevent harm to others or myself.
StephenW
I've had enough training, and get additional training all the time. I also practice, practice, and practice some more. I can assure you I hit what I aim at.
In the unlikely event I hit an innocent bystander, then I'll be held responsible in a court of law.
Is THAT sufficient for you?
Now, as you accused me of avoiding the question, I'll ask again; Would you like for someone to do that for you or a member of your family and then give the police the descriptions of the low lifes?
Oh, and to your comment to Schoolyard: I'm one of those who doesn't need a gun when confronted by bad people.
Would you then be like the very unfortunate Doctor in Connecticut who watched while his wife and daughter were raped and murdered IN HIS VIEW and was helpless to do anything, all the while a Police cruiser was down the block waiting for backup and "accessing the situation"?
XD damn right! I don't own a gun, but I must say I would be proud to know you were my neighbor next door gotta tell you. I notice StephanieW didn't answer your question. I wonder when she is going to suggest we ban spoons since it makes people fat? As we all know, that their intended purpose is so that you can gain sustenance but not over eat. Like cars are made for driving, but drunks kill in them everyday. Damn people like StephanieW won't be satisfied till we are Amish. Without the religion of course! Sick people use that to cause harm too don't you know? (yes I made him feminine on purpose.)
Justeen Mee
Actually, I know several Amish families back in PA.. and while they are pacifists and will endure whatever another puts on them, they actually DO have several firearms, as they hunt.
And as I don't recognize you, you're likely not a neighbor. However, we might be in the same area and if it ever comes to it, I will get between you and the "bad guys" if necessary. If I don't, there are about 40 to 50 million other carry permit holders who will get involved.
People don't understand that we're NOT vigilantes, or gunslingers out looking for a fight. We're their friends, co-workers, fellow church goers (not me personally - agnostic), PTA members, reading club partners and a myriad of any other activities who have made a personal decision to NOT be a victim. Nor will we allow others to be victims if it is within our power to stop it. We understand that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and more often than not, respond AFTER the fact to take a report and descriptions of the perpetrators.
StephenW
Where are you? No comments?
You lambaste me for a non-response, yet you do the same. Is that your method? Try to incite OTHERS and sit back and watch the fallout?
I gather you can't support your position without making a feeble attempt at making accusations and deflection.
Stephen W ran out to buy himself a gun. LOL. Or is thinking up another lame excuse to not have a gun. I don't know which. The intelligence of his opposition is more than he can bare!
You already know the type of person Stephen W is when he made the comment ".If you ever met me, you wouldn't ask that question. I'm one of those who doesn't need a gun when confronted by bad people" LOL. Yeah, big boy, your bullet proof, or your a 1 on 5 and you come out victorious because ya one big baaaad aaaaaass. LOL. Didn't grow up in the best places, and saw many 6'5" 240lb bad boys get jumped, and get the s*** kicked out of them. Don't believe what you see in the movies, its not as easy as you think.
Midnightridr
Good morning sir.
It never ceases to amaze me that the anti-gun radicals have such difficulty supporting their position in a logical manner devoid of emotional baggage. I present arguments to counter their preconceived concepts of those who legally carry firearms, and invariably I'm either called names or lambasted for my beliefs.
They seem to believe those of us who carry do so to be a "bad ass" (a term often used) or a vigilante. Personally, I carry so I can be fairly certain of going home at night and be able to to visit and play with my grandchildren. And if the situation arises, help ensure another innocent victim can do the same. HOPEFULLY neither event will happen again in my life time, but I am prepared for the possibility.
XD, good morning to you also sir. People like Stephen live in a fantasy world for the simple reason that they have been extremely fortunate in life to have never had to experience what it is like to be a victim of extreme violence. There are just too many people like him who once shared the same views then actually did have that first encounter with it and were fortunate enough to survive it. What was the first thing they did afterwards? Bought themselves a firearm and learned to use it to help protect themselves from said same ever happening again. I've heard of, and known of enough instances of it to make it a very valid point. Myself being one of those people.
XDm9mm
-- I am a gun owner and supporter, BUT there's something very smelly about your post. You foiled a pack of youth beating an old man because of your gun?
No you didn't. That's a fantasy you have. It's a common fantasy among your personality type (the hero fantasy), but it didn't happen. Go watch Taxi Driver, masturbate, eat some pie and keep having those sad fantasies.
For the rest of us, keep a gun in the home because it is your home and you have every right to own a gun.
WhoKnow, was it a staged fantasy recorded on video where the older gentleman in Fla. walked in on a store robbery in progress and put a quick stop to it by pulling his concealed handgun and administering a good dose of lead poison to the one robber armed with a gun while the other armed with a baseball bat took flight like a chicken in distress? How dare you sir/madame? You are a complete imbecile for insinuating that XDm9mm is a liar. FBI crime statistics points to over 2 million incidents a year, inside AND outside the home where law abiding citizens thwarts such behavior. I suppose that you would insinuate that the FBI posts those statistics in an attempt to make legal law abiding gun owners look good and make themselves look bad at the same time simply because if you compare the same stats for the law enforcement community they absolutely PALE in comparison. I stand by my assessment of you, and your ability to reason. YOU ARE A DAMNED FOOL!!!
whoknow
Why must you immediately resort to personal insults?
Yes, I "foiled" a pack of "youth" (I'm being politically correct). They were beating an elderly man in an alley as I was passing. I approached and yelled to stop and leave. Being alone, and not much younger than the man on the ground, I'll surmise they thought they had another easy target and approached me. At that point, I drew my handgun and to paraphrase a commercial, the look on their faces was "priceless". At that point, they turned and ran, as I noted like the vermin they were. You see, I was NOT a helpless old guy. I had the means, ability and willingness to deter them.
So, it's not a sad fantasy. It was reality. Sadly a reality that plays out all too often, with one glaring difference. Someone was armed and willing to do what was necessary to stop them.
So, play your "I'm a gun owner and supporter" on others. Personally, I don't buy your line.
AMERICAN PATRIOT
ONE GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT
MANIA FOR THEFT BY VOTING WAS CONTRARY TO BILLY CARTER'S INSTINCTS : BILLY CARTER, UNSUNG AMERICAN,
and no polished sycophant, not ignored during life, as brother of a president, was a
self-made man. This gentle personality was no brush off, when meeting preselected political whores huffing it off at tax payer's expense in D.C., nor a sucker to be glorified by many curious tourists. He was a man of men. He made it clear, in so many utterances, that he would rather sleep in his filling station than the White House! Yes, far ahead of his time, a bottle of beer was more precious than being forced into shaking hands with some low-life creep serving within the State Department, or meeting scoundrels strolling along Pennsylvania Ave.
In essence, the vast majority of Americans could care less in staggering around the White House in viewing portraits of past presidents. Billy was compelled to question political whores, of whom actually made it to the the top during the yesteryears. We can begin with Woodrow Wilson, a troubled man that sent our flowering young men over seas to be slaughtered, in the attempt to sell out our nation to the European League of Nations. Failing, brought him a miserable death. And there was the late Franklin D. Roosevelt, a traitor, in allying with Communist red Russia in 1933. His follow up was the late Harry Solomon Truman, who tried to conceal his ancestral background with an S for a middle name.
The old saying, " What's in a name.?" Ask Harry. Harry worked well with his buddies, red Russian agents, in laying the ground work for a then future United Nation's Organization, of which basically is a front for an approaching global socialism. And this goes on for ever, when a political hack is wheeled into office .Now getting back to Billy Carter. He knew as to what specific nation in the near east that was up to its neck in fighting off international banksters. No matter who makes it to the White House, and even before the present, all are merely tools of universal gangsters, using the global empire as a front for an ancient religious order, that needles its octopus like methods to gain control of any and all lulled into its net. A man like Billy Carter would never betray his manhood, by grasping hold of one octopus tentacle that reached from afar, right into the center fold of Washington's political whoredom. Incidentally, it was rumored that Billy was hauled via a military aircraft to a clinic for a rest, being forced against his will, to be socially indoctrinated, politically. Nevertheless, Billy was faced with a hive of his brother's insiders. Many Americans believe that Billy had received a chemically devised lobotomy from the identical better part of professional of hoodlums that originally drove him to the bottle.
hogorina
Just out of curiousity, what does that rambling bit of "information" have to do with anything posted thus far? And, just what is your point?
Yes hogorina, lets hear it. You have opened up a can of curiosity here!
Americans are goofy...some are crazy, the rest are mostly stupid (but many are trainable to become good little working robots, even though they are still stupid).
Let's back up to 1960 and start over. It wasn't a problem before the moral decline started.
Right on Laztstraw
deleted.
I agree
One edit - The moral and ECONOMIC decline. When money is money, you don't have these problems.
It's all over folks.
NBC... maybe you should catch up with the NEWS!!! Here's a link to an Oklahoma news source that has it right and with NO sensationalism..
http://newsok.com/gunman-commits-suicide-at-uconn-avery-point/article/feed/407744
That's funny how the other news article says they tried to stop him with non lethal force as he waved his gun around then he threw his phone and shoots himself and dies..."BUT MSNBC reports
He doesn't appear to be a threat to others, but we want to secure his safety," University of Connecticut spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said."
So who is right msnbc or the oklahoma paper,,, go big media
Another sensational half truth story to support gun control and make America frightened
non-news for non-thinkers
dmatthews3:
If MSNBC is quoting Stephanie Reitz correctly, MSNBC is right. Stephanie Reitz may be wrong, but MSNBC is not. See how that works?
What better way to get a gun handling course than to take your gun to an institution of higher learning?
great another copy cat killer..
How does going into an empty stadium and killing ones self, translate to harming 71 others? Not sure I follow the copy cat scenario. This was just another crazy.
England has strict gun laws and guess what their crime didn't decrease. Instead the method to commit crimes and do harm switched to knives. Banning guns isn't the answer but neither is carte blanche distribution. There is the potential to misuse any tool to do harm to a person whether it be a wrench, pencil, car, or even a nail file. If you are uncomfortable with a firearm that is your issue but don't think your fear is a legit reason to push your view upon anyone. Those who push for the taking of firearms have probably never been a victim and don't understand that police more often than not get to the scene of the crime after the crime had been committed. It is my right to own a firearm and your choice not to but don't think for a second you know better than the next person. That is just hubris and ignorance in one detestable package.
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and we call the six o'clock news the black body count.
the problem is a corrupt and ineffective government that does not enforce current law.
Exactly American! See illegal Aliens if you need to prove the point even more!
I found this posted on a CNN thread. Thought it would be worthwhile to share.
" Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220 - pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Clinton Thompson
Great post. I have seen it before and neglected to copy it. Guess what.... It's now in my file!!
Thanks!!!
Have a great and SAFE day!
Thank you and may you as well!
Well, since he is dead, AND the police have set up a "perimeter" around him, he is probably not much of a threat to anyone.
Just the beginning, sheeple.
beginning of what sicko? you think a picture of this killer is funny?
yup
maybe you aspire to be just like him?
I'd like to shave his head just for that. What a disgrace to post that picture.
You guys are missing Dichlorobiphenyl's point.
Has no one noticed that this all pretty common anymore. Shooting sprees, open violence, corruption...we're not the first large empire / civilization / human farm. This is just how they end.
1. Random violence
2. Passing of more restrictive (and in strange ways - a few less restrictive) laws
3. Corruption at every level of government
4. Break down of police force's ability to police the people without resorting to murder and thug mentality
5. Breakdown in basic services (healthcare, energy, military)
6. Invasion and attack by outside aggressors who are successful in wreaking wide spread destruction
It happened to Rome, Persia, Greece, Egypt, The Hapsburgs and Holy Roman Empire, the colonial British, colonial French, colonial Spain and Portugal, Medici's...and now it is happening in the United States.
This really is "Just the beginning."
And that picture - That's how sick this place has become. Most people are just too dumbed down to see it.
whoknow,
By using a picture of a murderer as his/her avatar and then confirming it was used because he/she thought it was funny, negates ANY statement that was made. No matter how insightful or thought provoking you think it is.
@!$%# it, let's just turn this into a Amish society! No guns, no knives, no spoons or forks, no vehicles, no planes, no trains, no meat, no sugar, No cell phones, no milk, no computers, no coffee, no religion, no teachers (since they like to molest apparently), no priests (see last reason). And I am sure there are many more. Point is, every one of these things has an inherent danger via a PERSON in control of it. There is no one to blame but the person responsible. Oh wait, we can only ban these things from legal people, so the illegals using machetes, and the criminals will still exsist. How do you gun removal advocates wanna tackle that problem?
sounds like a liberal agenda...and how do they want to tackle the problem? How about a gay pride parade?
That part of the equation doesn't even register in their half brain dead way of thinking. It just never even occurs to them in the slightest little way.
why is it that we only hear about gun violence , why do we not hear about the millions of times that guns have saved lives in a balanced reporting ? ... thats right i said millions there are more times that guns being present have saved lives than there is sensationalized gun crimes. i know it's true because it has happened to me . a group of thugs with knives in a parking lot ran away when i produced my firearm , and i did not shoot anyone .
You evidently missed the news coverage of the 71 year old man shooting the two wannabe robbers at an Internet cafe in FL. Or the elderly women that shot an intruder in her home in FL. There is plenty of coverage of people defending themselves with guns. Not assault rifles, just plain ole pistols.
Your one experience constitutes a million? Nothing like that ever happened to me, nor to my next-door neighbor. That's two million for our side. Trump that.
If I use my gun to "assault" someone, it becomes an assault weapon. Does anybody else understand it that way? I lost a very dear family member (by a 9mm handgun) to a murder over an argument about a vehichle that lasted for about a week. My family member was on the correct and legal side of the argument. My guns are for defense, if I have an arugument, I will settle it with words. I only carry one gun with me. I will shoot to protect my family, myself, and my home. I'm not required by law, because I carry, to assist anyone in any way but it depends on the circumstance, I will if I can. My gun is mostly used for target practice. I shoot clays with a 12 guage because I'm interested in hunting fowl. I'm not out to hurt anyone. Neither are too many to mention other law abiding carrying/gun owning citizens. Any gun out there can be an assault weapon if you use it that way.
An occasional instance is reported out of over 2 million instances yearly, according to FBI statistics, but they never fail to completely engrosse every single instance of misuse. What does that say for which way the agenda leans?
I get it...
TalkdeTalk gets idiot of the day!
Another kool-aid drinker i presume?
I'll be an idiot for the day.
And you'll be satisfied being an idiot for your entire life.