Sometimes the voices just whisper "Do it" enough times

Mitch, how is reporting on a mass shooting politically motivated? How is a mass shooting sensationalized?

How can people be so blind?

People with guns kill more people than people without guns.

Has been said so many times, one more time won't make anyone new listen, but it is so, so documented that the ease of access to guns in the U.S. makes it one of the most dangerous places not at war to live. Our peer countries with gun control do not miss the weapons, if they want them for hunting or other legitimate purposes, they have the right and are able to have them.

But maybe we ARE at war. People are ultra tense with the polarization of our political process and the fear mongering and divisiveness. We need to find a way to end this s*** and remember we are all citizens of the same country, once the envy of the world for its values, opportunities and focus.

Yes, let make all cars illegal too. They kill thousands of people too. When are people going to wake up and realize that guns are an inanimate object? Outlawing them isn't going to stop anything. Bad people do bad things. Drugs are illegal and it's the biggest industry in the world. FBI statistics prove that concealed carry states have lower crime rates. Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

PJ, people with guns save more lives then end them.

Richard, New York City only allows carry permits to be issued to the rich and politically well-connected. It is nearly certain that this shooter was breaking law by carrying his gun, why would making it more illegal stop him? Carry laws only stop law-abiding citizens from carrying. How would firearm registration have helped at all? This guy shot people, now he's dead, who gives a flying flip that his name was on a list? And that's, of course, if he didn't steal the gun in the first place, which is actually the case in most criminal shootings; in that case, he wouldn't even be on a gun registration list. In fact, Canada ended their gun registration list this year for most guns, because over the years, and millions of dollars spent maintaining it, it never helped them solve a single crime.

Just heard on the local NBC affiliate (I live in NYC) that it was a "disgruntled employee" of a company in the Empire State Building. So I'd wager that this, much like the shooting on the observation deck years ago, was indeed premeditated.

Guns don't kill people... bullets do.

PJ, people with guns save more lives then end them. If you had a loved one being attacked and someone near by or that loved one had a gun, the attack wouldn't end in your loved one being harmed, it would end with the attacker being dead. You can't legislate people from killing people.

Don't worry. This is a hoax. Everyone knows guns are illegal in NY.

Jeff,

Welcome to America. Where going into public and shooting people is as easy as buying a cake.

You must not travel much or you would know in most countries it is almost mandatory it seems to kill the innocent. Once again if anyone of the by standards had a gun this could of ended better than it did. The people of Switzerland have the right idea.

.

Shooter is dead n- excellent.

"the notion of armed citizens protecting themselves from an authoritarian government was laughable"

Tell it to the Syrians.

7 billion people in the world, about 300 million of them right here in the U.S. and 30 or 40 whackos a year crop up.. does it really surprise you? Seems to me that the only thing changing is the whackos don't go on a serial killing rampage that you don't hear about until a decade later anymore, they just blow up all at once and take out a half dozen people. And of course you hear about it before the families of the victims do.

A strong argument could also be made about the decline of religious morals vs. how many whackos aren't restrained by the fear of their eternal soul burning for their actions. Sociopaths and Psychopaths have always been around, I think the way kids are raised in the last few decades has led to fewer being noticed by the community and fewer of those that got by unnoticed having any sense of consequence for their actions. There are a lot of people here who think religion is for nutcases and extremists, but the fact is most people raised in a Christian environment are just everyday joes with a stronger sense of morality and a belief that if they do something really bad they will not just pay for it in this life but for eternity as well. It is a pretty strong way to prevent some people from acting on irrational feelings.

I just don't see acts like this one as surprising any more. Especially not with the attitude that so many of our youth have right now..

journal journal

Mitch, how is reporting on a mass shooting politically motivated? How is a mass shooting sensationalized?

How can people be so blind?

You cannot deny the Mainstream Media is slanted to the Left. You cannot deny President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been actively trying to pass UN Resolutions and US Laws to enact stricter Gun Control Laws. How can people be so blind to realize that an unarmed populous is a populous at risk?

I agree that the problem is not with guns. The biggest problem our country faces is cultural and until we produce a generation that does not glorify guns, murder, drugs, sex, etc., we will continue on our downward spiral.

PJ: People who manufacture cigarettes (without using guns) kill more people than people with guns kill people. And drunk people (without guns) driving cars kill more people than people with guns kill people.

PJ 1.10

People without guns are much easier to kill than people with guns.

Smoking kills 443,000 people every year. Until they either outlaw smoking, or the number of people that die from being shot gets close to that number, it shouldn't even be in the news.

5 people died today in New York from guns. In the US 1213 died from cigarettes. (and I'm not saying we need to outlaw smoking. It's not the governments job to save people from their own stupidity)

Every preventable death sucks. But we are sooooo far from having anything resembling a "mass shooting problem". There are so many other things that negatively effect people far worse every single day. But retarded liberals have a hard on for guns, so they pretend they're a bigger deal than they are.

Didn't take long that comments would lead to political statements and gun control. The only thing I know about gun control is that you should use two hands.

This is impossible. Guns are illegal in New York City!

@PJ-1795048

Tell that to the 9/11 hijackers. They seemed to do just fine without firing any weapons. Or any other mass suicide bomber. Timothy McVeigh(spelling?) didn't seem to need guns either. Hmm. Interesting. The worse mass murders don't involve guns. Fascinating.

Cars serve a purpose other than killing. What other purpose does a gun serve?

A. Preventing yourself or others from being killed.

B. Keeping a tyrannical central government in check (the main reason for the 2nd Amendment). Ironically, the same big government anti-gun libtards seem to favor so much.

Mitch--- Even Fox is reporting this story... oh now the Fair and Balanced News Network is a Left-Leaning shill for the socialists! Time to crawl down into your bunker.

i LEGALLY carry a concealed pistol. and alot of people i know ask me why. well to answer their question, for the protection of me and my family! if im in the grocery store and some nut comes in shooting i feel just a little bit safer knowing i can return fire if i have to. and im trained to use a fire arm. i goto the gun range all the time to practice. i keep my weapon clean enough to eat off of. i take my kids to the range and they know how to fire , and be safe around guns.. you people that say to take away guns from everyone heres one for you,, its 3am and someone kicks your door in or smashes thru a window, now the intruder could care less how many laws you pass he is gonna carry a gun regardless, ok hes armed, hes in your house where you are with your wife and kids. what would you do? you are at his murcy!! but im not.. i will grab the loaded shotgun and proceed to BLOW HIS F-ING HEAD OFF!! so you just try to reason with the nutcase or maybe crack a few jokes to lighten the mood haha.. lets see how that turns out. i have a niece who was just grabbed off the street by 4 adults that beat her ,stole her phone and left her in the street crying. nobodys grabbing me and dragging me anywhere before i dump a clip of .40 cal. hollow points in their chest and face.. sounds brutal huh? well so is some pos raping and murdering your loved ones. so let th hate comments commence, i could care less. im not the bad guy. im the guy that will stop the bad guy or atleast go down fighting..

Mitch: Surely even you can recognize the difference between a single shooting during the commission of a felony and a senseless, mass shooting?

You are right of course; it wasn't a gun that killed these people, it was a nut job with a gun. If he couldn't have got his hands on a gun, he would have been running around trying to stab people with a knife which clearly is just as dangerous, right?

Tracy, which is worse? Random people getting shot by a crazy man, or people getting shot by a criminal in the process of committing a felony?

@Puh, protection.

PJ............that was really deep, now, take another hit and think of something even dumber!!

not "terror related."....B.S!!!!!! In post 9/11 world, this is exactly what it is. Mass shooters, if caught alive, should be held as terrorists, US citizens or otherwise.

EarlyOut-1524710: That only barely made sense in the late 18th Century (without the French navy, one has to wonder how effective the revolutionaries would have been). By the mid-19th Century, it was obviously bogus, and by the 20th Century, the notion of armed citizens protecting themselves from an authoritarian government was laughable. Red Dawn is not a documentary - it's the fantasy of a twelve-year-old.

Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Obviously EarlyOut-1524710 the only one who lives in fantasy land is you.

I really have no issue with guns.. they aren't right for me personally but I see their use. I don't understand the semi or full automatic... if you hunting with them... wouldn't they tear the prey apart?

Gus serve several purposes like hunting for food (to live), you can live without a car, or protection for family and home against any number of things... we have black bears roaming neighborhoods.. I would like to have a gun if I ever meet one in my back yard and surprise it. Maybe people carry them for the security.

Gun control laws only keep the honest and innocent from possessing them.. Do you really think that guns used in most crimes are registered?.. C'mon already. It's the hardworking father or the single mom working nights that are being kept from protecting themselves and their family..The criminals have the edge and will continue to until honest citizens can legally purchase a gun as easy as criminals can illegally..

There's an obvious lack of basic moral character in today's society. Parenting should be taught in every school, just like math, science, etc. There is no more important class taught in school today that will have a major impact on the future of our society. Think about it.

@dscott15, I applaud you, will said.

Its sad that we dont hold the term "citizen" to be an honored name, like the Romans did. Somehow we have put the rights of POLICE above that of "citizen". Police should "SERVE" the CITZENS! This shooting is yet another proof that anti-gun laws dont work. NY has the most draconian and restrictive gun laws on the planet. Yet their murder, rape and other crime rates are way above the nation crime rates.

The reason why we had the 2nd amendment was because our founding fathers saw what happened in 1774/1775 when the British govt passed anti-gun laws to "squash" the will of the American people. The battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 were by citizens trying to protect their rights to guns, ammunition, gun powder and cannons. I call "SHAME SHAME SHAME" for the attempts to ban guns. Those who do that, are walking all over the GRAVES of those who died to protect that right.

Clearly Mitch is right. The media reporting a gunman shooting 10 people just shows the bias of the media. I'm sure Fox news would never publish such left wing smear tactics. Thank god for Fox.

We need to do something NOW to get control of guns.

Richard, NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. They didn't seem to stop this person.

It's the NRA's fault? Absurd.

The NRA isnt present in Africa when warlords, on a daily basis, raid villages and massacre everyone with assault rifles.

Gun violence is a fact of life regardless of the country or the laws that are enacted. Lawlessness knows no borders and doesnt care about lack of laws or whether a law is enforced.

The only reason you leftys throw logic to the wind over these shootings is because in order to secure Socialism (and pave the way for Communism) you have to get the 2nd Amendment scrubbed from our list of rights.

Not on my watch.

Who said the gunman bought his gun in NY?

@tito, teachers can't teach math and science. Are kids are getting dumber. You want them to teach parenting. Are you crazy, who the he!! is going to show teachers what to teach? The twenty something teacher banging their students? Go back to the drawing board. Parenting is taught from previous generations and unfortunately, our parenting behaviors are being squandered away because our society has no morals any more.

Battletide....If citizens couldn't have guns then there would be no need for the cops to have guns....except to shoot you in the head while you're handcuffed in their patrol car. Drunk drivers, illegal immigrants with over-loaded vehicles ect...kill more people then the wacko's on a shooting spree each year. Then we have the idiot parents that leave their children in a vehicle on a hot day so they can slowly roast them. We have had a WAR on drugs for a few decades now yet every day we loose quite a few people to over doses, however; becouse they're spread out across the states and not in a big group the media doesn't make a big deal about it. Most of us have guns becouse we can look at what's happening in other countries and see the potential of the same if not worse happening in ours. We the people being armed helps ensure we ALL maintain our basic freedoms, and prevents our border-linning tyranical Gov. from out-right stepping on us to conform us to their blues.

I believe in concealed carry, open carry and home defense.
I have never seen a weapon fired except at snakes and coyotes.
I have been around guns all of my life and never seen one used against a human.

My fences, gates and doors are not meant to protect me, my family or possessions.

They are meant to protect YOU ! ! !

Criminals prefer un-armed victims. Do not be a victim. Support the 2nd amendment!

in my opinion! My prayers go out to the victims.

Cars serve a purpose other than killing. What other purpose does a gun serve?

1) Hunting animals for meat

2) Collecting

3) Self Defense, you don't have to kill to defend btw, my grandfather had a bar in a very bad part of town, everyone knew there was a loaded Colt behind the bar and he knew how to use it, and nobody ever tried anything in 30 years

4) Protecting yourself from wildlife such as Bears and Rattlesnakes.

5) Historical Display - the gun is one of the main reasons we have a society, and one of our greatest engineering achievements which is why they are in museums all over the world

6) Law enforcement and any other use to defend others

7) Killing livestock for slaughter or to put an animal out of its misery when nothing else can be done

8) Target and skeet shooting as a hobby or sport, guns are in the Olympics if you were not aware.

Just to name a few...

Mitch:

You cannot deny the Mainstream Media is slanted to the Left. You cannot deny President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been actively trying to pass UN Resolutions and US Laws to enact stricter Gun Control Laws. How can people be so blind to realize that an unarmed populous is a populous at risk?

Yes I can. It's called mainstream because most Americans that make these "mainstream" are moderates. When right wingers see any article on a mass shooting as a liberal media showing it's bias and a network like Fox reporting absurd conspiracy theories as simply responsible news then clearly your view point is distorted.

It's already illegal to kill people this way. How is making it more illegal going to stop crazy people from doing crazy people things?

Time to outlaw crazy people.

"Guns don't Kill People",

"People Kill People".

"Corporations are People my friend",

BTW, My Obama / Biden Tee shirt, was made here in the U.S.A.

New York City already has strict gun laws, and still the nuts are able to do this. It's not gun laws that need to be changed. People are the problem. If someone wants to hurt large numbers of people, the internet is full of recipes for homemade devices or bombs. Do we outlaw the internet ? If we ban guns in the U.S., will this stop the blackmarket from making them available to criminals, and stop them from being transported over the border ? It will become a multi billion dollar business, just like drugs. It works so well for stopping drug trafficking...oh wait, no it doesn't. When are you left wing idiots going to realize that it's not the law abiding citizens that need to be punished ?

BLS-Your Solution is exactly the reason why the Populous should be armed, I believe that's the way Hitler went about it too.

@KAYBEETOYS

I don't see the Gun Control nuts expressing concern either.

Both sides are wrong on that account.

The story posted....somebody screamed guns need to be taken away...somebody else screamed guns are our right.

Stop trying to use smoke and mirrors to further your gun control agenda and call a spade, a spade.

Everybody gets disgruntled at some point in their lives - those without guns suck it up and get over it, those with guns go much deeper into psychosis before they get a grip. When you have more ways to hurt someone, you think more about using those ways.

Here we go again...get rid of the guns.....then ONLY CRAZIES AND CRIMINALS will have them. If the folks around this whack job would have all had concealed carry permits and been armed he would have got off maybe one shot. If we 'get rid' of guns and ONLY police will 'legally' have them we will all be victims of a 'police state' and people will be killed 'legally' EVERY DAY. For God's sake look at history and see what happens when you turn your own protection over to the government!!

We need to figure out WHY people are making a decision to act out violently against other people. What about our society leads people to decide killing is an acceptable choice? Have people become so desensitized by the violence they see in the movies and on TV that actually killing other people is a small decision?

Focusing on the weapon is a fools folly. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE REASON! The events repeating every week are not acceptable.

@Spooky - No, we don't have a morality problem in America. We have an education problem.

Sco, No one's out to get you.

All this talk of protection from the government is superstition. You're far more likely to shoot yourself than protect yourself.

Somebody needs a reading comprehension class. Where did I say anyone was out to get me? You could ask the poeple at Ruby Ridge and Waco about the government killing US citizens, but they are dead at the hands of Federal Agents even though they presented no danger to the agents or anyone else. And to deny there are Americans on Obamas kill list is denying cold hard facts reported by all news outlets.

Alcohol kills people
Drugs kill people
Wars kill people
Guns kill people

Sounds like we have a people problem to me....

Does Obamacare have a provision for scanning the public for mental incompetentcy ? Guess not or this administration would be in trouble...oh wait, they aren't bound by Obamacare. Politicians can do what ever they want for healthcare. That's where your ire should be directed !!!

Great, must be an election year.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob R-773084, people with guns save more people's lives from people with guns.

kaybeetoys
This shooting happened just an hour ago, and dozens of posters have come to defend gun rights. I don't see the gun nuts expressing a lot of concern here for the victims of this shooting.

And you have been right in there with the antigun kook rhetoric even mixing it in with your insincere expressions of concern. Pot meet kettle.

@KayBeeToys

I didnt post with a statement that in effect stated..."look these gun control people are souless for not expressing concern."

You did though.

I think I clearly stated that "Both sides are wrong on that account." Since I clearly chose a side, and stated both were at fault...in no way did I state I was showing concern either.

I was only pointing out that your statement was disingenuous.

The typically cited example of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So why do we keep pushing for less gun control? Wouldn't it be considered insane to continue to allow such extreme availability of pretty much any type of gun? Guns have never been banned, country wide, in our entire history. Why not try it?

The argument that if civilians can't have guns then only the criminals will, is a silly one to make. Where do you think the criminals get their guns from? It's not where you think. Very few guns that criminals use are stolen. The #1 method of getting guns in straw purchases. Meaning someone walks into the store and buys it for someone else. The 2nd most common way is from dealers with a FFL who don't really care who they sell to. Those 2 methods account for over 50% of guns used in crimes. If those sources go away, that's a HUGE dent in availability. Cutting those off will force the crooks to look for less easy ways to get them, and perhaps make it easier to catch them trying.

Just my 2 cents, as I also am a legal gun owner. But I'm just getting tired of hearing the same bullsh*t rhetoric spouted by the same pro-NRA, bunker building crowd. And yet every morning there is another spree killing here in the US and almost every single one involves weapons legally obtained...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/11/us/how-criminals-get-guns-in-short-all-too-easily.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/163367-where-do-criminals-get-guns-how-can-we-stop-them.html

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

Again, the 18th Century. Jefferson wouldn't say that if he lived today, because he'd be laughed out of the room.

The Second Amendment has become a suicide pact. Time to repeal it.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be the start of the next civil war. Somehow I think the gun owners will turn out to be the victors.

"...the inconvenient part about 'a well-organized militia'..."

Sorry; that should have read "a well-regulated militia" (thanks to whoever posted the article from The Atlantic). Meanwhile, whatever happened to the idea that with the exercise of one's rights comes commensurate responsibility? Or does that quaint notion even exist in this country anymore?

@ Chris

You seem very well spoken and logical. But, it's curious that you don't see the history of man...more specifically the history of man under governmental rule as the obvious reason that we don't "try" gun control.

Throughout the history of man, rulers that are preparing to consolidate power under themselves always have to take one important step first...insure the populace is weapon free.

Our forefathers knew this and set forth our laws so that this situation could never legally happen under the Constitution.

A total firearm ban may be not be a fully realized event in the history of governments and man...but total weapon bans is not new and it always ends in the oppression of the people.

When some lost soul or truly evil person (like that Army major) kills a bunch of people, why do reasonable people even give heed to those political apparatchiks who attempt to couple these dreadful deeds to their own personal agenda of disarming free people and passing even more control of our lives over to the state? Murder is evil, murder is wrong, few disagree. Those few are the people who like enslaving others, by the way. But to attach the fate of these poor victims to someone's oft mis-proven premise that leaving the state and the underworld as the only two armed groups in the country is wrong.

why do reasonable people even give heed to those political apparatchiks who attempt to couple these dreadful deeds to their own personal agenda of disarming free people and passing even more control of our lives over to the state?

So tell me, how do you feel about the TSA and airport security?

While doing my morning reloading and prayer session, God told me the answer to America's problems. He said we need a new political party. We can call it the "Firepower Party". And an amendment to the 2nd Amendment, which guarantees a gun in every purse, glove compartment, pocket, briefcase and house or apartment. Gun safety training will be mandatory and taught in public schools. New manufacturing plants and companies will be given tax breaks and government subsidies, which will provide jobs by the hundreds of thousands. Gun stores at every street corner will provide hundreds of thousands more jobs. Our economy can be based on guns and ammunition. Our dollar will be backed by lead, even better than gold! No more need for costly army troops. Everyone will be equipped and ready to serve at a moment's notice...just name the war and deploy 'em! Best of all, God says he will anoint the NRA to author the next Bible! Problem solved... a hero in every home!

Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those who don't.

a tragic and senseless shooting. however i am a bit disappointed at how clumsily worded this article is. "2 killed outside" implies the shooter murdered 2 people, where as actually 1 victim was killed, and the shooter was killed. also saying "as many as 8 others are being treated for various injuries" evokes that 8 other people were shot. while the actual facts are lain out at the bottom of the article, this is clearly another article that is meant to sound much worse than it really was (not to say that it wasn't terrible).

ECOMAN101
I have posted on this so many times in the past year it gets tiring. The arguments defending guns, the NRA, and the anachronistic 2nd amendment (sure just assign everyone a musket and put them in a militia) are lame and fruitless.

We feel the same way about your posts and lame arguments. Hopefully you will take the second part of what you advised others to do.

Unarming everyone results in only criminals having guns which results in a more dangerous society due to the fact ciminals don't really abide by the law.

Mitch summed it up perfectly, and this story proves it. Guns are already illegal in NYC; didn't stop this guy, did it?

Of course, I am, to say the least, rather skeptical about the official version of the story. I mean, really... that many people are just getting it in their heads to go and shoot a bunch of random people, and then turn around and shoot themselves? I smell a rat here. I can't prove that there's a hidden agenda, so it naturally has to be nothing more than conspiracy "theory," but it looks to me like there is an anti-gun group of sorts (could be our own government, it wouldn't be the first time) staging these attacks to "justify" (read: rationalize) passing more anti-gun laws "for everyone's safety."

As Mitch already pointed out, however, criminals don't care what the law says, so they will carry whether it's legal or not. If it's legal to carry, at least those who would otherwise be victims could at least have some chance of protecting themselves.

DCC70

"You'realoser - People are really tired of that worn out rhetoric "the liberal media" I'm sure you follow Fox and Rush, yet you say others are led to believe the "liberal media", what makes Fox and Rush better, because they tell you they are? Tell someone something enough and they will begin to believe it. BTW the media is more moderate than you want to admit to yourself, maybe liberal compared to Fox and Rush who are extreme right."

Actually, if you look at any independent study, you will find that a vaste majority of our mainstream media is quite liberal leaning. The only reason you think Fox is right is because the rest of our media is so far to the left. I dont listen to rush so I wont speak on that matter. Even my liberal college that I went to, UCLA, showed that most news outlets are slanted to the right, and something like the Drudge Report, which is accused of being to conservative by liberals, is one of the most centrists outlets out there.

Larry,

"Yes I can. It's called mainstream because most Americans that make these "mainstream" are moderates. When right wingers see any article on a mass shooting as a liberal media showing it's bias and a network like Fox reporting absurd conspiracy theories as simply responsible news then clearly your view point is distorted."

Here is a free lesson for you Larry. Its mainstream because those companies have the money to make it mainstream. Again, look at any study involving bias in media and you will find Fox to be one of the most centrist.

@Bob R, "Our" not "Are" but yes, you've proved your point, the teachers are obviously failing. Parenting should be taught at home through example, but obviously that isn't working either. Since it's obvious the basic moral principles of thou shall not kill or the difference between right and wrong are not taught at home anymore, I would think it wouldn't be so bad to touch on the subject in schools.

Wall of J: Your "theory" has 0 basis in reality. You might as well say that the war in Iraq is a ploy to get people to become pacifists.

These mass shootings are the real consequences of the lacksadaisical attitude toward gun ownership.

Bill1488, you are absolutely wrong. In NYC if you are not a member of law enforcement or some sort of security professional, you will NOT get a handgun permit regardless of how well-connected and wealthy you may be. Oddly enough, the incidents of violent gun crimes have gone up since all you lefties began crying and whining about the NYPD's stop and frisk policy. Coincidence-no, of course not.

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

"What luck for rulers that men do not logically think." -- Adolf Hitler

This describes the anti-gunners to a tee.

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -- Thomas Jefferson

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, (writing to his teenaged nephew)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The great goal is, that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Thomas Jefferson

Those who purport to believe that Jefferson would think differently about today's society ARE sadly mistaken.

If someone is attacking your family and you just happen to see a gun and a phone, which one would you grab first? Before you answer, consider the following:

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SELF-DEFENSE - NOT THE POLICE.

The most telling example that cannot possibly be misinterpreted is Warren v. District of Columbia: Three women were sharing a multiple dwelling. The two living upstairs heard the third being attacked downstairs. They called the police multiple times, who assured them they were on the way multiple times. About 30 minutes later the women upstairs thought things were okay because they didn't hear screaming anymore, and the two went downstairs and the perps were still there.

"For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The police never arrived.

The Supreme Court ruled: "...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen".

This is at a time when DC had the handgun ban in place, and firearms had to be stored in an unusable manner. Thus one was not allowed to carry a gun for protection and you can't rely on police even if you are able to make the call...A situation that has been the case from 1976 until Heller in 2008. "Heller" was supported by 33 "Friend of the Court" briefs, including one signed by 58% of Congress.

"Only for militia!" you say? All adults who are not otherwise forbidden are members of the militia all the time - and when called, we report for duty BRINGING OUR PERSONALLY-OWNED WEAPONS. Which is a damn good reason for civilians to own assault rifles of the same caliber used by our armed forces.

Imagine a war breaking out, 4 million of us militia showed up unarmed and untrained. Where are 4 million rifles suddenly appearing from? And the ammo? And the training? The war would be lost before we were equipped to participate. Audie Murphy and Sgt Alvin York became marksmen on their own time, not in boot camp. We should all strive to emulate their examples.

Our Founding Fathers, eighty million LAWFUL gun owners, 58% of Congress, 49 of 50 states permitting some degree of concealed-carry, and the Supreme Court say that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is a good thing, and it is also the law of the land.

"Only cops with guns save lives", you say? Dr. Gary Kenk of University of Florida (Criminology Dept) estimates that firearms in the US prevents 300,00 violent crimes per year. They are fired less than 1% of the time. For this to be mostly LEOs & POs is highly unlikely as because of the time needed for them to get to the location where the event is taking place. So they generally serve only as "clean-up" after the fact.

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." -- George Washington

Washington didn't beat the British with Free Speech. He shot them. American independence would not have been secured without the militia that consisted of "the People" at large. In the Dick Act of 1902, in which the federal government acknowledges that States have both organized militias (National Guard) and UN-organized militias (the People). As an Ohioan, I have read Article IX of the Ohio Constitution and it states quite clearly that EVERYONE, both male and female, 17-67 are automatically part of the Ohio militia, like it or not. According to the Dick Act the feral federal government CANNOT confiscate anyone's guns... It is our right to defend ourselves, from invaders, both foreign and domestic. This is why in Heller v. DC the SCOTUS acknowledged that it is an INDIVIDUAL Right to bear arms. The Founders knew this very well...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
{PAUSE}
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

These are two stand-alone phrases that make up the Second Amendment. The SCOUTUS understood this. Also consider that the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) cannot be abridged. Check your dictionary, abridged means "not to be shortened." They cannot be overturned. They cannot be revoked. They cannot be repealed. They cannot be CHANGED! If the 2nd amendment cannot be modified in any way, that means whatever the founding fathers meant, (which has finally been clarified by the SCOTUS), MUST stand until the United States no longer exists. And the only way for that to happen is through subversion or conquest.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin

This is the real reason why we have the problems in society today... The firearm did nothing wrong. It operated as it was supposed to. So why is it that the firearm always gets blame when it was the human that malfunctioned? [rhetorical]

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

Chris, you're here on this thread too. Oh boy, I can see you coming along with the whole insanity thing.

The typically cited example of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So why do we keep pushing for less gun control? Wouldn't it be considered insane to continue to allow such extreme availability of pretty much any type of gun? Guns have never been banned, country wide, in our entire history. Why not try it?

The argument that if civilians can't have guns then only the criminals will, is a silly one to make. Where do you think the criminals get their guns from? It's not where you think. Very few guns that criminals use are stolen. The #1 method of getting guns in straw purchases. Meaning someone walks into the store and buys it for someone else. The 2nd most common way is from dealers with a FFL who don't really care who they sell to. Those 2 methods account for over 50% of guns used in crimes. If those sources go away, that's a HUGE dent in availability. Cutting those off will force the crooks to look for less easy ways to get them, and perhaps make it easier to catch them trying.

We have tried this in other countries. Guess what the final block is to form a tyrannical government? Disarm the citizens. There are numerous occassions where strict guns laws went into place, and then mass genocides were committed against the people. Now I dont think Obama is going to start a genocide, simply food for thought.

And of course more people who commit shooting buy their guns legally, that makes sense. However, the very fact that one can easily obtain a gun illegally would mean that making guns illegal would not make criminals any more the worse. For example, pot is illegal so people have to use illegal means (buying from drug cartels) to buy pot. However, over here in California it is decriminalized and legal for medical use. Now most people buy weed from legal means. Making it illegal again would force people back to buying from cartels. If you make something criminal, only criminals will have it.

Have a nice day Chris.

Condolences to the family of the victims and speedy recovery to the injured.

Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

@Battletide Comment collapsed by the community

Correction! COPS with guns save more lives than end them!!! COPS!!!! COPS SHOULD HAVE GUNS SUCH AS THESE BRAVE COPS....NOT CITIZENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really? That's interesting because it sounds like in this case the cops shot and wounded 9 innocent bystanders. If the construction worker had been armed the situation may have ended without a hail of gunfire from trigger happy cops.

Oh and cops with guns end lives every single day and I'd bet that number is greater than the lives they save. After all, the cops usually show up AFTER the crime has been committed as in this instance.

Did anyone read the article or just listen to the witness ramble on?

@ Journal

Better to plow than die by the sword.

Perhaps they decide to let you do both...what then?

Your "theory" that "these mass shootings are the real consequences of the lacksadaisical attitude towards gun ownership" has 0 basis in reality.

It's basis is rooted in the lacksadaisical attitude towards the enforcement of the laws that are already established, lack of personal responsibilty and the mass approval of behavior that was formerly considered taboo or unacceptable.

Sheesh I have been reading these comments and firstly noone is speaking about the victims of this shooting and their families - no the discussion went straight to *gun control*. And it seems that along with gun control comes politics. It seems the people killed arent important just the preservation of people's guns are. And it is the same argument over and over again. We here in Canada arent perfect by any means but we have strict gun control laws and we abide by them and dont question it. We own rifles for hunting and such but it is far from easy to get a gun licensed here. Most of the semi-automatic guns owned here are owned illegially by gang members and that for sure is hard to control. But usually gang members are busy shooting each other and are not randomly on the streets shooting anyone and everyone. We average about 200 shooting deaths a year. We have our crazies just like everyone else and you cant screen everyone wanting to purchase a gun for mental illness so some slip through the cracks. But I guess I just dont have the constant fear mentality that people there seem to have. And you may very well have that fear for a reason but I just dont think that handing out guns like candy is the answer to it. Yes guns by themselves dont kill people but making it easy to put those guns in the hands of people surely does. Anyway that is just my two cents worth and maybe it isnt fair that I even comment since I dont live there and know all that goes on. All I know is that when I mentally disturbed person such as the one in the Theatre shooting can purchase the types of guns he purchased and affect that many people it should be called into question as to the types of guns he had. If his semi-automatic hadnt jammed there would be more injuries and fatalities. Noone should be allowed to buy a gun that can shoot a round of 100 bullets in seconds. In the armed services yes but not a mentally ill student. Or in this case a disgruntled employee. My heart goes out to the victims of this shooting and their families. What a sad, sad day for them

I don't need anyone to explain the design purposes of a firearm. I would gladly register my firearms just as I register my automobiles. Oddly enough, I had to take both a written and a practical test to be able to drive a car. I have to periodically, take another written test, to renew my license. I don't see why guns should be any different.

Now of course some of my "crazy" pro-gun brethren will jump straight up onto the paranoid train "If the government knows what guns I have They can come take them" Listen to me, SHUT UP! I know people, unfortunately, who have multiple DUIs. Not only are they not in jail, they still own a car. The government is not going to come take your guns. I'll see your 2nd amendment and raise you a 4th and 9th amendment. (If were going to sound educated, let's actually educate ourselves) One last thing my "crazy" pro-gun brethren, stop telling everyone that if you were there with your firearm things would have been "better". I am tired of explaining that, if you were in that theater you would NOT have been able to draw your baby glock 9mm from your concealed waist band holster, shooting a moving target the size of a gallon of milk (his head), at distances of at least 30 feet, in the dark, from uneven ground amidst complete chaos. You have watched entirely too many movies! If you ever step up to my firing line and spout this kind of drivel from your mouth, I will violate several of your civil rights. People are anit-gun in part because you want them to think you are a cross between Jet Li, Jason Bourne and Little Joe Cartwright.

Now anit-gun folks, we can't uninvent firearms. Simply making them illegal isn't going to make them go away. Crack is completely illegal, yet everyday many middleclass teenagers possess, distribute and use crack. Illegal doesn't make anything, go away. Infact it might make things worse. If guns were illegal it would make home invasions so much easier. Large strapping thugs could break into a single mothers home, while she and her children were there, without fear of possibly being shot. Weather the mother has a firearm or not is not the issue, the possibilty that she does is enough. Consider this, the US invaded Iraq, assuming (pretty much hoping) that we would find chemical weapons. We didn't find any chemical weapons. After his capture, in an interview, Hussein was asked " Iraq did not have any chemical weapons. Why didn't you just allow the UN access?" His response was, "I didn't think the U.S. would attack to try confiscate them but I was certain that Iran would attack if the knew with certainty we didn't have them."

You repeal the 2nd amendment you might as well choose the next constitutional right you want to give up. Propably the 4th amendment will go next. The government would need some free reign to collect the now illegal firearms. It's not that I need my firearm to defend my home from the dark galactic empire, it's that giving up my firearm isn't going to slake your thirst for law and order. What really happens is we give up one right, we will eventually give them all up. I can make a logically sounding argument against any of the amendments that doesn't make my argument logical.

I quit reading the posts after about #1.60 or so. It is very apparent that very few people actually read the article at all other than the headline. Only ONE person was shot by the shooter, all the other wounded were hit by the bullets from the police who were taking down the assailant when he pointed the gun at them.

This WAS NOT a mass shooting, but simply a disgruntled former employee killing another co-worker. MSNBC is trying to sensationalize another tragedy and continue it's politically motivated Liberal agenda.

Two people were killed and nine injured in a shooting incident Friday morning outside the Empire State Building by a disgruntled ex-employee of a nearby business, officials said.

WHEW!!!!

Boy am I glad only gruntled people are allowed to be employed by our business.

I think Spiddas just annihilated all opposition. Either that or gave you fair warning to get off his lawn.

More slaughter on our streets, malls, temples, forts, college campuses so people who shouldn't have guns can kill people when they feel like it. Where is the law being use the way the Founding Fathers meant it to be?

I hope all those injured by police gunfire sue the hell out of them. A women's fashion designer named Jeff Johnson? He had problems right from the start. As far as shootings go yes they are bad and senseless in a lot of cases. I just saw the Batman movie a few nights ago and at the end i thought of those lost in that shooting. I thought that i got to see then end of the movie but they didn't. A sad thing. However banning guns is no answer. Next it will be bows and crossbows. As for this getting worse or happening all the time it has been happening since the 1800's. Only thing now is people know it soon as it happens and they know it across the country and the world in minutes. Back then it was just confined to a local area or spread as legend over years.

i love it we are in a world of cowboys. i cant beleive it made news the breaking news, lol.

@Allen_Shore,

No need to find a reason why these people are acting out violently. All you have to do is read 50% of the comments here and know that most of them would act out violently almost unprovoked. People have lost their damn minds through the ability to be completely anonymous. It really shows you the true nature of human beings when they don't have to suffer any consequences for what they say or do.

As for the gun argument. Guns were originally designed for KILLING. Now that doesn't mean that they have not found other uses for them besides that, but that was their original intent. As well any automatic weapon has only one practical use, killing as many and as quickly as possible.

you city slicker's living in a ZOO. haaa!

I surmise... said:

You do realize that Thomas Jefferson died 186 years ago and was referring to the tyrannical rule that Britain wanted to impose on those who came to America seeking religious and political freedoms.

Are you trying to fool us into believing that the American government has not become just as tyrannical? Before you answer, consider the Patriot Act, NDAA, Waco, Homeland Security, the TSA, police checkpoints (unwarranted searching without probable cause), and much more. I realize you would like to believe that the US really is the "land of the free;" so do I. However, what I want to believe, unfortunately, does not coincide with reality. You might counter that we are still free to say things like what I have just said; consider the ex-Navy SEAL who is looking at a court martial and indefinite detention because he spoke critically of the US government:

We are in the express lane to tyranny, and many of us either don't even realize it, don't want to believe it, or are happy to help make it happen because they have bought into the utopian propaganda.

I took the time to write all this because I think you're a person of reasonable intelligence. I'm not here to "win" an argument. I'm here to help raise awareness.

Joe said:

Sometimes the voices just whisper "Do it" enough times

Anders Breivik, the Norway killer, testified during his trial that the voices in his head were saying 'don't do it'.

He did it anyway.

I guess that's when you know you're REALLY messed up.

Peter the tar eater: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm only trying to get the facts out there. If I was able to educate the opposition that they are just regurgitating propaganda from the thought police without them having anything substantive to back it up, great. And I guess if it "keeps them off the lawn", well, I guess that's just an additional benefit. ~_o

On a side note: The Greatest Truth Never Told - Full

When Microsoft puts up its news internet site, NBCNEWS will have the distinction of coming in fifth place instead of fourth place. Since when in America can we be censored so easily as to what we can read. NBCnews doesn't understand that when people take the time to write, even stupidities, they deserve the right to be read. Deleting and collapsing comments is censorship and we are not in CHINA!

NBC made a mistake taking on Newsvine and interns who have not been taught freedom of expression and freedom of the press and the freedom of the people who are asked to make comments to have those comments written and read.

Psychotica said;

This is why it is critical that people come to know the LORD today, as it is written, "today is the day of salvation." Not tomorrow. Not the day after that. TODAY!

Is there any word on whether the deceased were saved? Were they born-again Christians?

Jesus saved the ones who were only injured; the two deceased are DEAD, so even if they were Christians, their faith didn't save them from being shot. and as one of them is the shooter, sorry,i really don't care much....

If a pedophile priest is 'saved' does he still get to go to heaven even though he rapes kids? And will the children he raped go to hell if the act made them turn away from Christianity? If they all go to heaven, pedophile priest and children alike, does God segregate Heaven so the traumatized child never has to see their rapist?

Please try to find some empathy for the wounded and suffering rather than focusing on hell and damnation. Can you find it in your heart to wish them a speedy recovery, to hope that if any children are injured that they not suffer long-lasting trauma, and forgive the shooter?

I'm with Gandhi on this one. "I like your Christ. I would like you Christians if you were more like your Christ.'

All of that aside, though...IT'S WHAT YOU DO THAT MATTERS, NOT WHOSE NAME YOU DO IT IN.

@journal journal

Oh LOL. We have a police force. Guess what? You're not it. The people who think the police and the government are the enemy should be the first to get their guns taken away before they kill a cop in their holy war against all things authority.

Let me guess, you knew exactly what you were going to post before you found a comment to reply to or do you just have reading comprehension issues?

Where exactly did I say or even suggest that the police are the enemy? My point was that the cops arrive on the scene too late to save anyone, only to shoot and kill the criminal, therefore "cops with guns end lives every single day and I'd bet that number is greater than the lives they save"

Sorry I wasn't able to post my original comment in crayon so it would have been easier for you to comprehend.

@ Chris

You seem very well spoken and logical. But, it's curious that you don't see the history of man...more specifically the history of man under governmental rule as the obvious reason that we don't "try" gun control.

I agree that history has shown this to happen in many instances, however, there has never been a country nor a system of government quite like ours. We are not pre-Nazi Germany, nor pre-Franco Spain nor Russia, Italy any number of countries prior to becoming dictatorships with 1 man rule. It simply can't happen with the checks and balances in place. It's not possible for one person or one group even to acquire that much power in the U.S. Fringe extremist groups have claimed for 40 years that it WILL happen soon, and yet I see no sign of it. I'm 39 and spent 13 years in the Navy and trust me I am no pushover to let someone take my rights away. But I don't see them being taken away. I see attempts to make people safer. Some misguided, and some just simply repeating tings that have been done before, hoping this time it would be different.

I personally own a 9mm hand gun, a shotgun, and a old .22 rifle. And while I enjoyed being on the ship's self defense force and spending a lot of time firing an M-60, I don't consider myself an avid gun enthusiast. And maybe I can agree with private gun ownership continuing to be allowed, I do see a drastic need for change in our ability to obtain them. It's just too easy. Maybe it's time we had to really jump thru hoops to obtain them. More paperwork, longer wait times, more intensive background checks. Perhaps require psych exams as a condition for both purchase and continued ownership. A person may not be nuts when he buys one, but maybe to keep it he has to go get a new certificate every few years saying he's still mentally stable.

There are lots of things that can be done, but what is clear is, something has to be changed.

Losing your job isn't personal it's just business.

Don't take it so personal many jobs out there that need a body for 7.25 an hour.

Dear Psychotica I'm sure you must be a nice person but, are you aware of the things you write? I guess if you have named yourself Psychotica it's because you know something is not totally OK with you. I perceive you like Carrie's mom.

of course said;

NBCnews doesn't understand that when people take the time to write, even stupidities, they deserve the right to be read. Deleting and collapsing comments is censorship and we are not in CHINA!

NBCNews is not the one collapsing comments. The people who read posts on here, if they don't agree with what you wrote, can flag it. Enough people flag it, and the comment is collapsed. Come back to this story tomorrow, you'll see the moderators have restored a lot of comments that were collapsed simply because the majority of people reading the post didn't agree with the views expressed therein.

The comments not restored will be the ones including profanity or where one poster cusses out another poster but doesn't have anything constructive to say. Also not restored are going to be the advertising, or the off-topic derails--for instance, on an article about Chihuahuas in an animal shelter, someone puts up a post that says "They are Mexican dogs--deport them all!" and then goes on a rant about illegals.

NBC made a mistake taking on Newsvine and interns who have not been taught freedom of expression and freedom of the press and the freedom of the people who are asked to make comments to have those comments written and read.

Interns are not making these comments. ordinary people are. I'm a biometrics technician, I take fingerprints for nursing students. Haven't been many people in today so I'm killing time.

@ Journal

There is no reason to strengthen gun laws...if the laws we have are not being enforced.

Laws that, for example, state it's illegal for an individual or organization to release 100's of military grade firearms into the drug cartels in Mexico without a way to track and regain control of them later.

Does the fact that this happen really need a new "stronger" law.

Knee jerk reactions are what got us the Patriot Act.

The latest news is that this was a fellow that was downsized from this company around a year ago. He returned this morning with a 45 caliber handgun and shot his target 3 times killing him. As he was walking away, the police located him. He apparently pointed the gun at the police which responded with a hail of bullets. According to the NY Times, he never got a shot off and all the wounded were courtesy of police bullets flying everywhere.

My condolences go out to the families of those killed or injured as part of this horrible crime. The shooter, who obviously was also looking to die, got his wish. In reading the comments above, though many had valid points, most were off target. Only one comment really rings true, our problems with violence in the US stem not from the availability of guns, nor violent video games or movies, our problems stem from the further loss of morality. As our society becomes increasingly secular,we are losing the teachings and the faith required that instills the sense of personal responsibility that combats such feelings of violence. We blame the tools not the wielder, we think it is an easy fix. Get rid of all the guns and violence goes away! A more naive thought has never been expressed! We've been at war with drugs and drug abuse since the 60's and drug abuse is as rampant today as it ever was. What will be any different about guns? The american family is dying, what once was considered normal and stable is fast become the minority and to justify the change we now claim single parent households can be just as nurturing as the traditional two parent households. Now that is being extended to gay households where 2 mothers or two fathers are found to be ok. History does repeat itself I'm afraid if the conditions become fertile for it to take root. The difference between history and future is how we act with the knowledge that is right before our eyes. As our focus draws more to the individual, without holding that individual to some measure of personal responsibility, our society declines. It may be a case that neglect of one parent or another might be the underlying cause for an action, but as a human being with a free will and rational thought it is our responsibility to do what is right. We must begin again to hold ourselves accountable for our actions and return to the values that we are killing by neglect ever so rapidly. It is the action that harms or helps and our society has become lost when we seek to discredit the helper and praise those that harm. In either action only one person is accountable, the person that decided to harm or help and it is they who deserve the focus of our actions not the implements used in their deeds.

@I surmise. . .

Sorry, I don't think our Founding Fathers [or Mothers] could ever have dreamed of the military weaponry of today. At the time of the American Revolution the best weapons were primitive flintlock muskets, and pistols which could only fire one shot.

No they weren't "primitive", they were the most advanced, state of the art, military weapons of the day (and the best of which were rifles not muskets). Try to keep some perspective when you make assumptions regarding the Founding Fathers. The anecdotal evidence would lend more support to the idea that they'd want us all to have military grade, fully automatic weapons than it would suggest they'd want us to to largely disarm. Either extreme is as ridiculous as the idea that anyone today would have any clue what the Founding Fathers would want.

The shooter didn't go on a "shooting spree". The NYPD did.

ofcourse1

When Microsoft puts up its news internet site, NBCNEWS will have the distinction of coming in fifth place instead of fourth place. Since when in America can we be censored so easily as to what we can read. NBCnews doesn't understand that when people take the time to write, even stupidities, they deserve the right to be read. Deleting and collapsing comments is censorship and we are not in CHINA!

NBC made a mistake taking on Newsvine and interns who have not been taught freedom of expression and freedom of the press and the freedom of the people who are asked to make comments to have those comments written and read.

Newsflash- NBC is a PRIVATELY owned company. The only "freedoms" you have when you use THEIR website are the ones THEY grant you.

Nothing more annoying than people bitching about their "freedoms" while ignoring the freedom of others. Like I said, it's their property and they have the FREEDOM to do whatever they want with it.

@ Chris,

Thanks for your service. I currently serve Active Army.

I disagree that it's not possible, here in America, to be controlled by one man. It's only a matter of leverage and how it's accomplished. I do agree that it's as difficult as it's going to get for any government that has ever existed in the history of man.

As far as more hoops is concerned...in themselves they don't seem like a bad idea. The question is will it really curb anything.

Bans: We know firearms won't just disappear from the face of America if we ban them. Drug legalization folk argue that legalization will take the violence out of the drug trade. How much more violence will be introduced if weapons are banned?

Deeper regulation: Even if not banned, just regulated more, what is to stop the individual that failed the psych exam requirement from utilzing illegal networks to get the same firearm? Then with the same piss poor decision making...shoot up the empire state building.

Bans or restrictions are not going to prevent those who are willing to break the law anyway, from attaining a firearm by breaking the law.

Therefore, those left to suffer are those who are willing to give away more rights through the implementation of further laws, in a futile attempt to change the course of law breakers who cause suffering.

Good conversation.

Probably got mad because he could not get a 32 oz Cola..

I'm guessing either that or he couldn't get his three hundred and fifty dollar pair of Nikes because his welfare check was late.

Thanks for your service. I currently serve Active Army.

Sabot I enjoy your posts - good 'seeing' you again, bro. Thank you.

Either that or he couldn't get his three hundred and fifty dollar pair of Nikes because his welfare check was late.

WTH???

I see that a couple of idiots have decried the "trigger-happy" cops in this situation. Oh yes, the cops should have just shot the gun out of the perp's hand, or shot him in the knee, just like those real cops do on the TV shows like "SVU" and "CSI."

Perhaps the cops should have just let this guy empty out his gun, let him kill a few more innocent citizens and a cop or two. Then when his gun was empty, the cops could have sat the guy down on the curb and given him a good, stern lecture on the evils of gun violence. Ah, maybe not...then the anti-cop morons would probably accuse the cops of bullying the perp in that situation.

I know it's been said before, but I'll say it again: until you are face-to-face with a lunatic who has already killed one man and is now aiming his weapon at you, and you have to make a split-second decision about what to you with your weapon, you should quite frankly shut the hell up and give credit to the cops for killing this lowlife and keeping the collateral damage to a minimum. Thankfully, the wounded are all expected to make full recoveries. Actually, I'd love to know how many of the wounded were idiots who ignored police orders to stay back or move away, and were following the action with their little cell phones at the ready, hoping to get their videos or pictures on the news. If that is the case for any of them, well, I feel no sympathy for them.

Spencer said:

Smoking kills 443,000 people every year. Until they either outlaw smoking, or the number of people that die from being shot gets close to that number, it shouldn't even be in the news.

Not quite the same thing. If you chose to smoke and give yourself cancer after being aware of the risk, that's your own stupid fault. If you're shot on the street by some nutjob while going about your normal daily routine, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

First of all, my condolences to the family of the victim, and my well-wishes to those wounded by police.

If you're waiting for the guy to come along and say that this country is overly saturated with guns, wait no longer. He's here.

If you're waiting for the guy to say that fewer guns in this country, not more, is the solution, you've found him.

Where were the NRA vigilantes? Why didn't they get this guy? I'll tell you why. There probably were people within shootin' distance of the shooter who were armed, and wisely, the didn't draw on him. Trained police officers did, and look what happened: nine wounded, probably by police bullets.

The notion that you are going to defend anyone against anything with your gun is just crazy talk. Ask Gabby Giffords. Ask the victims of every mass shooting from then until now. Where were the NRA vigilantes?

Your guns are a fetish -- a substitute, perhaps, for something else. But they aren't defending anybody anywhere except, possibly, inside (that's right, inside) your home or your business.

Guns are too easy to get in this country. Try to contradict me.

I'll contradict you on one point, Pittsburgh man: I highly doubt that there was anybody within shooting distance of this lunatic who was armed outside of the police. This is NYC, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yeah, I know: a fat lot of good the gun laws did here. But saying that there had to be "NRA vigilantes" in the immediate vicinity pretty much shows your, at best, naievity and, at worst, complete ignorance about NYC.

BLS;

In what fantasy world do you live? They have tried that many times, guns just get smuggled in and sold for exorbitant prices to anyone with the cash. Guns keep turning up in all the Nanny states that banned there ownership. The black market on guns would simple explode. I give you Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK and Teddy, he made his millions selling smuggled liquor from Canada to the mob on the east coast during prohibition. Behind every great fortune lies a great crime, the Kennedy's are proof of that.

If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them. Are you sure you want to live in such a place, when some, not all, but some of the outlaws wear badges? You are either naive or hopelessly brainwashed. Consider that the U.S., Britain, Russia, France and China are the five largest arms dealers in the world, consider further that they are the five permanent members of the U.N. security counsel. you think this coincidence?

There are currently, counting all Federal, State, County, City and D.of C., 27,738 gun control laws and regulations on the books. How many more do we need? Enforce those first. If YOU don't want to own a gun, so be it. But, 108,980,755 law abiding guns owners murdered no one today. Don't paint with a broad brush, it can come back to bite you. Your statement is akin to saying all blacks are criminals, all Indians are savages or all Jews are bankers. We know it's not true, but you repeat it anyway. If guns as you assert kill people, then pencils misspell words or illegal drug dealers are just undocumented Pharmacists. Besides, this is NY city, home of the second most restrictive gun laws in the nation behind D.C. So how did he even get a hand gun to start with? Oh, that's right, that non-existent stolen gun market the left denies and blames gun shows. No gun shows allowed in NY either, Hmmmm. Since it's NY city, what are the odds this clown is a Democrat? Deranged, unbalance or out right insane knows no political affiliation, dummy.

In case you missed it, I'm one of those 108 million plus law abiding gun owners. You are doing much to forward the imagine of the rabidly extreme, brainwashed, Brahman liberal. Congratulations.

It simply can't happen with the checks and balances in place. It's not possible for one person or one group even to acquire that much power in the U.S.

It can't? Tell that to Homeland Security, the TSA, Bush (who pushed and signed the Patriot Act), and Obama (who pushed and signed the HDAA). It really doesn't matter what government system you have on paper; what matters is reality. Never assume that it can't be done; checks and balances look nice on paper, but many of those "checks" can be bounced far more easily than you may realize. Congresspeople and senators can be (and have been) bought.

The government is now tyrannical. Drone strikes on american citizens and the 2012 National Defence Authorization Act that permits the government to indefinitely detain anyone without due process. Thank you shame John McCain and President Obama! This is only the beginning of the shootings, the society is melting down before your eyes.

Alcohol kills people
Drugs kill people
Wars kill people
Guns kill people

Sounds like we have a people problem to me....

Nailed it.

Alcoholism, drug abuse (LEGAL and illegal) are HUGE problems in this Country.

Texting, distracted driving and motor vehicle fatalities are also HUGE problems in this Country.

But alas:

Prohibition didn't work.

Or war on drugs isn't working.

Evidently the new phoning/ sexting/ texting behind the wheel laws aren't working because morons everywhere are still doing it.

These asinine wars sure as hell aren't working (not in OUR favor, anyhow) and-

Tougher gun laws when we already have 20,000 on the books certainly won't work.

Yep - we certainly have a people problem here. Imagine that!

It's not the guns, there is something else going on here, case in point Canadians have just as many guns ,but no where near the amount of gun violence why is that?

Oh My Cosmic accident that resulted in all that is; ,

It can't be?!?, another that see's the giant government bureaucracy for what it is? And what I could easily become? There is hope yet.

wlee-950886

It's not the guns, there is something else going on here, case in point Canadians have just as many guns ,but no where near the amount of gun violence why is that?

Um, no they don't. That is an outright lie. There are only 30Million people in Canada, not 300Million.

Joe B, you don't think NYC is swimming with guns?

Say what?

@SabotAndHeat

And thank you for both your service and the well thought out post. My main thought behind the gun ban/hoops issue is this:

Over half the guns used to commit a crime were purchased by either a straw buyer, or by the criminal himself from a gun store where the owner allows them to be obtained with little or no concern for the rules. By removing or changing that option, I believe it's going to force the crook to use other not so easy ways to get them. Which in turn would lead to less guns on the street. I agree that if he can't them from a gun store or pawn shop, he'll turn to buying a gun out of the back of someone's car. But if there are less guns on the street, that would drive up prices and perhaps forcing the bad guy to use something other than a gun.

I see the gun nuts have been busy getting posts collapsed which don't subscribe to their warped view of the world, so I'm sure mine will also be collapsed.

What these gun "advocates", and the NRA want, is for a gun in every Americans pocket (to protect ourselves of course). Image the chaos that this would create. Someone accidentally shoves someone else, or has her handbag grabbed by a thief, or just gives someone else a dirty look. The "victim" decides to "protect" themselves with their constitutionally approved handgun, and starts shooting in the general direction of the "perpetrator", and suddenly, a dozen innocent bystanders are lying on the pavement, either dead or dying. Welcome to America of the future if the gun nuts and NRA have their way.

It's time to disarm these morons. We need stricter gun control NOW!

Chris from Yucaipa,

by the criminal himself from a gun store where the owner allows them to be obtained with little or no concern for the rules.

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Federal Firearm License holders follow the law to the letter. I know several of them and they would never "have little concern for the rules". Your world view is backwards. You call the law abiding citizens law breakers and defend criminals.

No one believes you, go crawl back into your hole!

Guns kill, plain and simple. The idiots who say 'people kill, not guns' are looney and are only fooling themselves. i'M Not saying they should be outlawed, just stating a FACT, GUNS KILL! and in this case, the police did a good job of shooting up the neighborhood themselves

Chris;

Please do sight the statistics or studies that in FACT state half the guns used in crimes are sold by a licensed dealer. If a dealer is caught selling a gun outside federal laws, he goes to prison for fifteen years and pays fines up to $100,000 per gun proven sold out side the law. I don't know many people willing to sell a gun to a criminal in the first place, let alone with those kinds of repercussions.

Criminals, according to ATF and FBI statistics, obtain guns by stealing them, or buying them from those who do, just like they have for decades. they also get them through individual sales by unwitting legal owners. If I sell a gun, you will get background checked, whether through my store or my personal guns. NO ONE buys a gun in a gun store without the Federal back ground check, it only takes a few minutes (Unless they have a question), it's free, and if a buyer has a legal issue the Feds will find it. If there is a question the Feds will delay the sale until they do further checking on the buyer. So, sight the statistics and not those fantasy numbers by the SPLC, DNC or Brady Org, they have an agenda. Like Clinton 11 kids a minute are killed by guns. We all know that was a bill of goods. Put in the facts or keep the opinion to yourself.

Such a terrible loss for the family of the innocent man killed--my condolences and also, my thoughts are with the people wounded, I hope they all are able to make a full recovery.

A lot of talk about both sides of the Second Amendment issue. I think Spiddas' post (#1.127) gives the best description as to the importance of the Second Amendment and it's intent by the writers of our Constitution. A modern day approximate equivalent is to look at what is happening to parts of northern Mexico where the drug cartels have COMPLETELY taken over. The good law abiding Mexican citizens there have NO gun rights, no Second Amendment. The cartels have set up their own government and religion (Santa Muerta). The innocent people there have suffered horribly, and are totally at the mercy of the drug cartels. There are case after case of mass shootings/murders that have occurred.

Bandit;

Then according to your line of thought, CARS KILL, ban the all!!!! So do Ball Bats, Knives, Tire irons, Spoons, Crayon's, computers and everything else in the world that can be used as a weapon. Ban it all and we'll all live in the 6th century again before guns were invented, is that it.

Guns DON"T kill, my myopic friend any more than cars. They are a mechanical devise, they can do NOTHING without and operator, just like a car and that is a FACT!

"Eight bystanders were grazed or shot -- all of them, apparently, by police bullets, sources said"

I am quite certain that grazed still means shot. Btw, nice accuracy by the police shooting bystanders. They get so excited at the thought of being able to kill someone, innocent or not.

Ron, I live in NYC. The fact that you think that the streets of this city are just teeming with people armed to the teeth and ready to explode at the drop of a hat proves to me that your view of NYC is formed by nothing but cliches and ridiculous stereotypes. Yeah, there are a small few areas in the City where the presence of guns and gun violence are sadly prevelant. This area is not one of them. It's the Empire State Building neighborhood, which is primarily business-oriented and is filled with tourists and people who are going to and from work. I would safely wager that 98% of the people in the area were unarmed when this happened. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good stereotype, right? Now excuse me while I go polish and load my pistol before I head out into the old-West-style shootouts that I encounter every day on my walk home. Jackass...

Did anyone actually read the article? People are talking about another mass shooting, my question is where?? This was not a mass shooting by a deranged gunman as some people seem to think. This person shot ONE, not two or more, but one person and then walked away. All the other people shot were shot by the police trying to shoot the shooter!!.. I think there should be an investigation into the use of firearms by the police! Eight innocent people shot by police who obviously can't hit the broad side of a barn door! I think they are lucky they didn't shoot each other! Seems we need gun control by the police, in that they need to learn how to shoot the guns they have! There is no reason why eight bystanders should have been hit by anyone let alone by the bullets from a policeman's gun. I shot my first gun when I was 7 years old and was taught not to point a gun at anything I wasn't intending to shoot. Second, never shoot at something unless you have a clear shot at it. I am now 66 years old and can say I have never shot at a person except for when I was in the military in Vietnam. Dozens of rounds to take down one man was rediculous enough, but when they hit all the innocent people they did, that was over the top! There should be an investigation and a multitude of lawsuits agains7y the police on this one!

@Tina (comment #1)

What is going on everyday someone is doing a mass shooting and then there own CRAZY

"Mass" shooting? This guy shot one (1) person. How is that "mass"? Everyone else shot in this incident were shot by the police. From the article:

Eight bystanders were grazed or shot -- all of them, apparently, by police bullets, sources said.

So, okay? Not a mass shooting.

@Comment 1.18

That only barely made sense in the late 18th Century (without the French navy, one has to wonder how effective the revolutionaries would have been). By the mid-19th Century, it was obviously bogus, and by the 20th Century, the notion of armed citizens protecting themselves from an authoritarian government was laughable. Red Dawn is not a documentary - it's the fantasy of a twelve-year-old.

Armed citizens have successfully resisted their government numerous times in the 20th century. You're apparently just historically illiterate:

Indeed, the Founders and their intellectual progenitors had an almost boundless faith in the pragmatic, as well as the moral, efficacy of widespread arms possession. They would be not at all surprised that no 20th Century military has managed to suppress an armed popular national insurgency, a fact which accounts for the modern histories of Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Cuba, Ireland, Israel, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, to name only the most prominent examples.

from an essay by: Don B. Kates Jr., and

Is the view of an armed populace embodied in the Second Amendment still valid in a society with professional military and police forces? Is an armed populace still capable of performing the functions detailed above? Many have argued that it cannot and thus, that the private ownership of arms is an anachronism inapplicable to our current circumstances.[80](p.1140)These arguments rest on empirical assertions that are highly debatable to say the least.
Commentators often attack the vitality of the military and political functions of the militia concept with the argument that they can no longer be performed by a militia.[81] Simply stated, the argument is that an armed citizenry cannot restrain a domestic tyrant or deter a foreign conqueror backed by a modern army. This empirical assertion is frequently made by lawyers, politicians, or other advocates who offer neither argument nor authority for the proposition.[82] And while this assertion may be true in some limited number of circumstances, as a categorical assertion it is demonstrably false.
Consider some recent examples. The Vietnam War demonstrated that a modern military power can be resisted by guerilla fighters bearing only small arms.[83] This lesson has not been forgotten. In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly."[84] The deterrent effect of an armed populace was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United Nations peacekeeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and sanitary."[85]
The validity of these concerns has also been demonstrated in the current conflict in Chechnya where "[m]ore than 40,000 soldiers from the (p.1141)Russian army ... have quickly been humbled by a few thousand urban guerrillas who mostly live at home, wear jeans, use castoff weapons and have almost no coherent battle plans or organization."[86] The Russian army's nuclear capability apparently has not translated into a tactical advantage in the streets of Chechnya.

from an essay by Scott Bursor. So while you may live in a bubble of historical inaccuracy, some of us (thankfully) are still paying attention to current events. Hell, you can add Libya and Syria to the most recent incidences of an armed populace resisting their authoritarian governments.

@journal journal comment 1.19

PJ, people with guns save more lives then end them.

Categorically false.

Not so. Consider:

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

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

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

So, as we can see, guns are used to commit only 8% of all crimes, or roughly 436,000 times per year-- meanwhile, armed citizens prevent crime somewhere between 989,000 and 1,030,000 times every year-- that's more than double. While these figures don't explicitly single out how many murders are prevented by the responsible use of arms in self-defense (for the obvious reason that it is difficult/impossible to prove a negative), these figures certainly indicate that armed citizens prevent crime with their guns far more often than guns are used to commit them.

Read more at: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

@ Larry-367607 #1.79

Mitch:

You cannot deny the Mainstream Media is slanted to the Left. You cannot deny President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been actively trying to pass UN Resolutions and US Laws to enact stricter Gun Control Laws. How can people be so blind to realize that an unarmed populous is a populous at risk?

Yes I can. It's called mainstream because most Americans that make these "mainstream" are moderates. When right wingers see any article on a mass shooting as a liberal media showing it's bias and a network like Fox reporting absurd conspiracy theories as simply responsible news then clearly your view point is distorted.

First of all, my condolences to the victims and their families in this tragedy.

If you think the MSM is not slanted left and almost ready to topple over that way, then you are indeed left leaning yourself. How else could not see the tilt? (e.g. tilt a picture on the wall and lean over the same way, the picture looks straight, even though, relative to the room, it is not)

You are correct, it depends on your perspective.

But riddle me this, why is it, in every movie I have seen, the antagonist, when the role allows, is a Republican or Conservative? (i.e. American President, Evan Almighty, etc)

I also agree that you concede MSNBC is not MSM. Of course, you should realize the US is actually Right Center, or Right Moderate , depending on the polls you read, (but given the most 'conservative' poll) less than 37% of the population consider themselves liberals (2010 Gallop Poll 20% Liberal, 35% Moderate, 42% Conservative)

And if you watched any other news outlet, you would know that the Obama Administration is pushing to pass (and Obama has said, even without reading the final draft he would sign) the UN Gun Trafficking Treaty. And while it may not be a direct threat to the 2nd Amendment, Social Security and Income Taxes were never supposed to get over 2% of net income. That didn't last long did it. And I would bet my bottom dollar, Fast and Furious was part of the UN Gun Treaty strategy by the Obama Administration, which is why He won't release the documents requested by Issa.

And to everyone here,

If you go back in history, to 1900, it is not until you get to '20s that stories start to appear about mass shootings, (that are not related to Indian issues) and these are gang-land related. (even though I am sure there may have been a few I could find no reports.

In the '20s and '30s there were numerous mass killings, again generally limited to the criminal elements, Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone and the like. Not your run of the mill types like this one.

Things pretty well flat line during the 2nd WW, and it is not until 1955 there the stories start reappearing and only in 1955.

I would say beginning in 1966, with the sniper incident @ UT Austin there has been a steady increase in reports of mass shootings and killing.

It was the beginning of LBJ's Great Society, equality for everybody. The war on Poverty.

I know most of the conservatives get it, but I going to have to spell it out for you liberals. Decades of irresponsible behavior, that is decades of behavior where there are no consequences, no responsibility, no required effort, have caused this.

No fault divorce, don't like the fact you picked a loser to marry, get a divorce, no body's fault...

Felt like being a slut, no worries get an abortion, or hell, the government will pay you to raise the kid. No father required.

Or better, just go and get pregnant to get the check or two or three or four with as many different fathers.

ETC. ad infinitum

But decades of liberal ideology correspond directly to the increase in violence in this country. How do you explain it?

And you say we conservative haven't a clue? DUH.

One more thing: Given the nature of the current Political Campaign, one might conclude that the toxic nature of the politicking is having a negative impact on the people of this country. And I would recommend everyone contact their respective candidate and news outlet, and ask them, demand of them, that they bring back to reality and fact with civility. And that they hold their PACs accountable.

And Thank You WMG-21, for pointing out this was in fact not a "Mass Shooting" by the individual involved, but in fact by the Police involved. So much for the argument "only police should have guns"

This was not a random shooting, it was a targeted shooting. This man must have found himseld at the end of the road to put his entire life and his family's in second priority! I hope more and more companies, CEO's and employers in general see what comes out of people, when they squeeze their productive juices until they are practically in an unemployable age or close to retirement, and then get rid of them hiding under "downsizing, restructuring or reduction of budget". My heart goes out to his family and his young son, specially. And may God have pity of his soul. Yes, God. This type of things has nothing to do with God, this is the product of the imbalanced world man has created for himself!

I was really long winded in comment #1.135. Let me condense this a little, the idea that making guns illegal will solve all or even any of our violent crime problems is absurd. Making them illegal WILL NOT make them go away. Crack is illegal and I can get it much easier than I can get a firearm with compatible ammunition. I can probably send someone into any one of your local high schools and buy several different types of drugs. The problem with taking away the 2nd amendment is that it DOES NOT STOP with the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment gets repealed well that 4th amendment surely will need "modified". While were at it, that 1st amendment is sure irritating, sometimes. Taking away constitutional rights isn't a slippery slope, it's a dead-fall.

This article is about one guy who targeted another individual and was later shot by police. many of the comments are all out of proportion to what happened. In this case the police caused more damage than the perpetrator, when their wild shots missed their target and hit bystanders.

You guys that think individuals with guns can't give a corrupt government a run for their money... study geurilla warfare. Read about the Viet Nam war.

And how effective were muskets? Go research how many died in the American Revolution. In the Civil War. Old war technology is still effective if it is employed as designed. You won't take on a machine gun with a musket, but you can sure fire off one shot, hit your target, and run away to re-load and fight again another day.

Some of you "enlightened ones" are so smart you're no earthly good.

Wake up now!

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Federal Firearm License holders follow the law to the letter. I know several of them and they would never "have little concern for the rules". Your world view is backwards. You call the law abiding citizens law breakers and defend criminals.

No one believes you, go crawl back into your hole!

and

Nicodemus1946

Chris;

Please do sight the statistics or studies that in FACT state half the guns used in crimes are sold by a licensed dealer.

I did cite them, 4 of them, earlier in the article. It's not my fault you're either too lazy or too ignorant to to have seen the links. Next time Wake up now!, before you open your mouth in some vain attempt to sound clever, or try and be a smart@ss, I'd suggest you not jump onto the end of a thread without first having read the entire thing. Because you look really stupid right about now for having done so.

the "mass shooting" in this case was from the NYPD. luckily, they didn't kill anyone.

Something doesn't add up... his gun can only hold 8 rounds, 3 went into his co worker, and 9 more were injured....

Does the NYPD suck at shooting?

Hmmmmmm, question.

This post has been up over 3 hours and has over 2,300 posts.

The post for the 7 different Chicago shootings has been up for over 7 hours and has 275+ comments.

I understand this post involves 2 deaths and multiple injuries but the Chicago incident has 10 more injuries with multiple different shootings.

Both posts comments range anywhere from sadness, to anger to the usual diatribe of blame, anger, hate racism, gun control nonsense and vitriol.

Why does the NYC incident garner more, by number of posts, outrage than the Chicago incidents?

Just wondering.

@ Chris: I DO NOT THINK GUNS SHOULD BE OTLAWED ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. THAT IS NOT THE ANSWER. AND PEOPLE NEED GUNS FOR SELF PROTECTION AND DEFENSE. THERE IS NO WAY BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL I WOULD EVER VOTE YES ON A BILL TO BAN HANDGUNS IF THIS WAS TO COME ACROSS MY SCREEN AT THE VOTING BOOTH. IT IS NECESSARY FOR CITIZENS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. Are you crazy! You clearly are intelligent but to ban guns from law abiding citizens is absurd. It is also unfair to the ones of us who own guns and abide by the laws. Innocent citizens should not be punished just because of a few ruthless inconsiderate criminals. So no the govenment should not try that. How will an innocent woman be able to defend herself from a robber, a rapist, and a murderer? How will an innocent man protect himself from an armed robber and murderer? These people desrve the right to defend themselves by owning handguns. EVERY CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT AND DESERVES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND PROTECT THEMSELVES. You have the wrong idea. Two, there is no way that I along with millions of other Americans will ever go along with anything like this. IT'S NOT GON HAPPEN. NOT IN MY LIFETIME. NOT ON MY DIME. I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH TO PROTECT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. NOBODY will ever be allowed to take away my rights without me putting up a fight. No Siree!

Because it's New York.

Yet another senseless shooting. And here, again, are the gun nuts with the same, tired old arguments:

1) The Paranoid Argument: "I need my guns to protect me from the government."

2) The Rambo Argument: "If I'd been there with my gun, this never would have happened."

3) The NRA Made-Up "Facts": "The UK is more violent than the US." "It's a well-known fact that Obama wants our guns."

Yet, none of these people will address a very simple question: Is your gun more precious to you than the thousands of lives that could be saved with stricter gun control?

There are a lot of people here who think religion is for nutcases and extremists, but the fact is most people raised in a Christian environment are just everyday joes with a stronger sense of morality and a belief that if they do something really bad they will not just pay for it in this life but for eternity as well.

Wrong. Most killers in this country WERE raised in a Christian environment. Most people on death row call themselves Christian. Christianity is all about forgiveness; people are taught that they can commit any sin - stealing, lying, even murder - and be forgiven. They think that because some guy supposedly was murdered 2000 years ago that somehow they are now absolved of sins. This religion is actually the opposite of sel-responsibility.

Joe B

I probably would have responded, at least to point out that you just admitted my point.

But it's not wise to correspond with children on the Internet, and people who resort to name-calling are presumptively children in my book.

C Ya

@Moonwolf99 comment #1.199

Not at all..... See my comments #1.135 and 1.190

I agree that the arguments you provided are infantile, though number 3 is a little biased. It's more like facts made up in the name of the NRA.

I think guns should be registered like an automobile. Like an automobile, people should be required to display some standard of competence when they purchase a firearm.

It won't change much of anything, though. Crimes will still be committed with firearms. Even if guns were strictly illegal for average citizens to own.

Maybe if prison really really sucked. You get so angry at me and those like me for my stance on the 2nd amendment but prisoners and convicts swing the 8th amendment around like a lethal weapon.

bonas_rama, it's about forgiveness and repentence. Repentence means to turn away from your sin. It's real easy to pick on Christians and appear to be educated.

@ Pistol Instructor: Thank you for a rational response. I agree that guns should be registered like automobiles.

My question, though, is how do we know gun control won't work if we haven't even tried it? If it works for the UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden - just about every other civilized nation - why won't it work for us? Are Americans really that different from people in other parts of the world? It's almost insulting to Americans to say that it works for other countries, but it won't work for us. It's just as insulting to suggest that we will become Nazi Germany. (I know you didn't suggest that, but others have.)

What we are doing right now isn't working. There has to come a point when we realize a compromise may be necessary.

And, again, why is a gun more important than a human life?

Wake up now, to be more specific they rank # 13 per capita of gun ownership, doesn't sway from my opinion. Thanks for the Liar reference

BATTLEZONE, you must either be the biggest troll, the most blatant moron, or both.

1) If only COPS had guns homicide rates would SKYROCKET. Even anti-gun cops will grudgingly admit it.

2) The VAST majority of private citizens who shoot regularly are BETTER marksmen than your average

police officer. Police Officers must qualify with their firearms annually, and the tests are woefully

easy, so much so most pre-teens with a BB gun could do it. It's NOTHING like the military.

3) 99% of officer training has NOTHING AT ALL to do with shooting.

4) If you look in to compiled facts officers in the field facing danger are lucky if, in firing a 15 round

magazine, they hit TWICE.

5 (The one thing you damn near got RIGHT) Yes it IS a lot different shooting at paper compared

to a human being.

6) Looking to numbers there are not ENOUGH cops, and in a busy metropolitan area on an average

to high crime night, you may be waiting a while for help, so I hope your attacker is nice enough to

honor a time out (Hey! "Parlay" worked for Captain Jack Sparrow!).

7) In the last ten months or so I, personally, have had to draw my .45 automatic TWICE. My prayers

were answered as I did not have to fire. It was enough that both times the parties KNEW I would

employ my weapon, once to save myself, once my wife.

8) As a former Marine, a combat veteran, and a man who has had to take human life I can attest that

it stays with you forever, but most people who train with guns accept the responsibility. Basic and

and very GOOD RULE: If you doubt your ability to do so, DON'T CARRY ONE.

9) Situations where civilians must protect themselves and others occur EVERY, SINGLE DAY, they just

don't make headlines.

So, BATTLEZONE, please rebury your head back in the sand after reading this (unless you pulled it out of somewhere far more dark, damp, and warm to show us your uneducated fanaticism). As long as I and my wife are armed, WE will never be the victim of one of these random attacks. I pity anyone who would look to you for protection. I'm absolutely SURE YOUR 911 call would be answered first because you put your absolute faith in underfunded, understaffed, undertrained, and over worked cops.

Oh...P.S., I don't fault POLICE OFFICERS. Like we were when I was a firefighter, they are doing the best they can with what they have...even though they aren't as COOL as we were!

To Nicodemus1946 READ MY COMMENT, you stupid dope! I said, "I'm not saying they should be outlawed" Jez are you stupid!! But, now that you mention it, if there were no guns, people would not get shot. If there were no cars, there would be no auto fatalities... should I go on??

Chris from Yucaipa

Your so called "references" were from 1992 and 1994... Why don't you find articles that are less than 20 years old. This is a new millennium and gun laws have changed and so have electronic background checks.

wlee-950886

Wake up now, to be more specific they rank # 13 per capita of gun ownership, doesn't sway from my opinion. Thanks for the Liar reference

The United states is number 1 and Canada is 13. How is it then that Canadians have just as many guns as the US? Your logic is not valid and your "opinion" doesn't really matter. So yes, you are a liar.

By the way... I LIVE IN CANADA

MoonWolf99: You might want to go back and look at #1.127 and take that into consideration. It pretty much eliminates number one on your list. As far as number two goes, that could always be debated until the proverbial cows come home. But the fact remains that NYC has some of the strictest anti-gun laws on the books, yet this miscreant still managed to break the law. {Pardon the Sarcasm. Since when do criminals obey laws?} And for number three, lets look at what the UN and other independent, non-NRA sources and studies have to say about overall violence and this topic in general...

**********************************************************************************

"Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United states (446 vs. 2034 per 100,000 population). -- {The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations.}"

"Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly under-counting the amount of gun crime there. -- {Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.}"

"To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. -- {Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996.}"

"The top 10 countries for homicide do not include the U.S.:

1. Colombia -- 62 per 100,000
2. Jamaica -- 32 per 100,000
3. Russia -- 20 per 100,000
4. Mexico -- 13 per 100,000
5. Estonia -- 10 per 100,000
6. Latvia -- 10 per 100,000
7. Lithuania -- 10 per 100,000
8. Belarus -- 9 per 100,000
9. Papua New Guinea -- 8 per 100,000
10. Kyrgyzstan -- 8 per 100,000

-- {United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 – 2000.}"

"Misconception: 30,000 people are killed with guns every year.
Statistical Fact: 54% of these deaths are suicides -- National Center for Health Statistics, average rates for years 1981 through 2003.} -- (80% in Canada -- Death Involving Firearms, Kathryn Wilkins, Health Report vol. 16, no 4, Statistics Canada.}). Numerous studies have shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall (i.e. gun plus non-gun) suicide rate."

**********************************************************************************

Beside the fact that in this case, sad to say, the cops pretty much did as much, or even more damage than the actual shooter.

BTW - Believe it or not, I am not currently, nor have ever been, a member of the NRA. Hopefully that clarifies that this goes well beyond the NRA...

"Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people." -- Unknown

You cannot rely on the Government to protect you and your family. Guns are a reality of life and you cannot un-invent them. There will always be violent people in the world and to think that you can round up %100 of the guns in the world is completely delusional.

@Spiddas: According to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, in 2009, there were 0.073 gun homicides per 100,000 people in the UK vs. 3.0 gun homicides per 100,000 people in the US, making our gun homicide rate 40x higher than that of the UK! If that doesn't tell you that the UK knows more about gun control than we do, I don't know what can.

Oh, and BATTLEZONE, to expand on one of my own points, #9, let me relate it to a comment above where someone was called out for stating that the media sensationalism of these crimes is politically motivated. IT IS a fact that every single day people effectively employ firearms to STOP criminals. However, if THESE stories made the news like those of the weekly mass shootings we read about it would give the PRO-GUN MOVEMENT a solid beach head to fight from, and absolutely DECIMATE almost every argument people like you use to justify disarming the public. The media, in reported so one sidedly, is showing which side they support. Now...TELL ME THIS ISN'T USING MASS MEDIA TO SUPPORT POLITICAL AGENDAS!

I dare ya...

I double DOG dare ya...

You can't refute it because it makes SENSE...

Oh...wait...anti gun zealots feel common sense HAS no place in this argument!

@Pistol Instructor

You had no reason to shorten your post 1.135. It was brilliantly written and about the most logical thing I have seen written about gun violence on these forums. It says what I have always thought.

rat

P.S. read these forums for years, your post was the first time I've ever had a reason to reply.

OMG! If we just look at the "gun rate" the US is worse than Britain! Forgive me for the facetiousness, but the point was that it's not about the gun rate. (As I do not personally know you, nothing personal is intended.) It's about the fact that their "gun control" policies have actually increased the rate of violent crimes as a whole. Dead is dead, be it by gun, knife, rock or bare hands. Except that now, no one has the ability to defend themselves from the criminals... Who are still using guns! (Go figure.)

The world has always been and will always be a dangerous place. The Coca-cola dreams of teaching the world sing/sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya ain't never gonna happen. As soon as we can accept the realities of this life, the sooner we can work on the real problems. Call them broken or hurt, it doesn't matter. Hurt people, hurt people.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin

That is the real reason why we have the problems in society today... The firearm did nothing wrong. It operated as it was supposed to. And it's the firearm that always gets blame when it's the human that malfunctioned... How about we start with them and then see where we can go from there?

I guess the reason I stand as strong as I do on several subjects, like this one, is that I really, really hate the fact that society acts like it's still school. If one sorry sonofabitch caused trouble, the whole class had to pay for it, whether they knew who caused the trouble in the first place or not. Why should ANYONE pay any kind of price, or loose a RIGHT, because one person, (or group), commits a crime.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely." -- Lord Acton

This is why any kind of gun registration should NEVER happen. They tried it in 1930's Germany, and it worked out marvelously... For Hitler. NEVER forget that, people. (That's just one of MANY.)

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

Quite frankly, if they did make it a crime to own a gun of any kind, I pretty much guarantee that there would be PLENTY of people out there that would get to gather together with their combined knowledge to manufacture and distribute homemade guns, or possibly even develop a new energy based technology. Never underestimate what can be conceived by good old "Mother Necessity."

"Logic dictates that if Pro-gunners are as violent as Anti-gunners say the are, there wouldn't be any anti-gunners left..."

The saddest thing about this incident is the fact there was so much collateral damage from the cops. Either way, my prayers, (for what they're worth), go out to all of the people who were hurt or killed, and to their families.

I found the following a while back, and it may give some insight as to why many of us think the way we do:

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
Why the Gun is Civilization.

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 gangbanger, and a single gay 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 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 weightlifter. 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.

Oh, and if anyone comes to take my guns, they can have them... ------- LEAD FIRST!

Moonwolf99, I'm certain there is more we can do, I completely agree with your obersvation of the crazy paranoid apprehension so may pro gun folks have with regards to registering all their firearms. The government isn't going to come take anyones firearms.

I think one of the most important things we could do is enfoce our laws better and make punishment more realistic. I've never been to prison and would really like to avoid going in the future. As I see it, prison consists of no going outside to see your friends, you can only watch "x" amount of T.V., you have to work in the kitchen or do the laundry, you can go to the library and/or work out in the gym and you only get to see your girl friend on supervised visits once a week. Don't know about you, but this is the same punishment my parents gave me when I broke curfew in high school. You have to wonder why Sweden's DUI statistics are so much lower the ours. It's not because they drick less, it's because the enforce their laws very strictly. I think people are less likely to commit crimes if the law is enforced and the punishment is not desirerable. That's where I woul start.

Beside the fact that in this case, sad to say, the cops pretty much did as much, or even more damage than the actual shooter.

Which actually proves one of my points. Just because trained, armed professionals were there does not mean that this tragedy was, or could have been, prevented. It just means that even more innocent bystanders were wounded.

Dead is dead, be it by gun, knife, rock or bare hands.

The difference is that guns kill more people at one time than a rock or a knife or bare hands could ever possibly do. The difference is that guns make it far easier to kill a person - let alone multiple people - than a rock, a knife or bare hands do. Guns depersonalize the act of killing. You just have to point and shoot. If you're using a knife, rock or bare hands, you're going to have to put significant effort into killing someone. You can't just drive by and kill someone with a rock, knife or your bare hands.

OMG! If we just look at the "gun rate" the US is worse than Britain!

Our gun homicide rate is 40x higher than Britain's. That's nothing to sneeze at.

Btw, I still haven't gotten a response to my question: Why is your gun more important than a single human life, let alone many?

In response to the Marko Kloos letter, I fail to see how a can of mace wouldn't work just as well as a gun. Why does it have to be a lethal weapon? I carry mace and I have discovered that I just have to show it to someone who is threatening violence and they will back off. Even criminals don't want a face full of mace.

No fault divorce, don't like the fact you picked a loser to marry, get a divorce, no body's fault...

So are you saying that Ronald Regan, Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Dick Armey, and Donald Trump are part of what is wrong in our society?

MoonWolf99, I will answer your question.

Yes. It is. I am not just a practiced SHOOTER. I also have extensive training in tactical and defensive shooting. I am NOT the average Joe on the street with a gun. In fact, if people had to take the training I have had they WOULD make a difference in situations like this one and others. I have personally intervened in two attempted rapes, no less than five domestic assaults, three assaults, and one arguable attempted murder. That is possibly ELEVEN lives saved, by the mere PRESENCE of a gun. The GUN is not the problem, the PROBLEM is the intent and the level of training of the person HOLDING that gun. In the case of the later, look back to the article and see who caused more harm to innocent bystanders.

So yes, if you ask me, MY GUN, and the lives and well being of those ELEVEN PEOPLE, are worth it, and I am fairly certain they will agree. Oh, and to prove chivalry isn't dead, NINE of those people were complete strangers to me.

Now YOU answer a question: If loopholes could be closed, if backround checks were perfected, if training such as mine became mandatory before someone could THINK of buying a gun, if FEDERAL law required registration, and if sales could be discretionary (meaning the gun seller could refuse to sell to a person based on personal observation i.e. agitation, paranoia, jittery, angry etc.) WOULD YOU STILL WANT GUNS TAKEN FROM LAW ABIDING, HONEST CITIZENS WHO WOULD AND HAVE PRESSED THEIR ARMS IN TO SERVICE TO PROTECT OTHERS?

And how deep do my beliefs go? How certain am I that guns in and of themselves are not evil? That it's in the intent of the wielder?

In March of 1995 my first wife took a shotgun, put the barrel in her mouth, and pulled the trigger.

That gun did not kill her or convince her to kill herself. Had it not been present she would have slit her wrists or overdosed. She STILL WOULD HAVE KILLED HERSELF.

Yet I STILL believe in the right to bare arms.

@MoonWolf99

Btw, I still haven't gotten a response to my question: Why is your gun more important than a single human life, let alone many?

What a stupid question, no wonder no one has answered it. I've got lots of guns and I don't expect any of them will ever take even a single human life. If one of them should it will likely be in defense of my life or that of my children and likely be inside my own home.

So let me ask you a question, why is the life of some criminal who has broken into my home more important than the life of one of my children?

Our gun homicide rate is 40x higher than Britain's. That's nothing to sneeze at.

{shakes head} You highlight the point you try to make while still leaving the complete facts in full view... Because the truth cannot be hidden. Facts, truth and logic will always trump feelings. {Don't get me wrong, I wish people could live peacefully together. But until there is a global paradigm shift in that direction, and greed, avarice and hate are terminated, it isn't going to realistically happen.}

Though any non-criminal life lost to ANY type of violent crime is a travesty, ALL of the facts combined is what paints the complete picture. Just like how a PC or TV screen works. People on the "gun control" side of the fence want to distract everyone to look at one or two pixels that they either don't like or disagree with, but those pixels fit in just fine and works quite well when looking at the whole screen. Unfortunately, this pixelated view is how the vast majority of liberals view these things.

And it doesn't matter how impersonal or how many the implement can "do", it has to do with the overall amount by ALL means. {Case in point, that jag-off in Norway who used explosives and guns.} Britain may have significantly fewer killed by gun violence, BUT in the big picture, they still manage to have more violent crimes than we do!

Lets switch around the boldface from where the data came from to what the data says...

"Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United states (446 vs. 2034 per 100,000 population). -- {The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S., Daily Mail, July 3, 2009, citing a joint report of the European Commission and United Nations.}"

"Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly under-counting the amount of gun crime there. -- {Fear in Britain, Gallant, Hills, Kopel, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000.}"

"To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. -- {Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police, Daily Telegraph, April 1, 1996.}"

And then there is the flip-side where it has been documented the guns also save lives:

Dr. Gary Kenk of University of Florida (Criminology Dept) estimates that firearms in the US prevents 300,00 violent crimes per year. They are fired less than 1% of the time.

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

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

And this just scratches the surface... When ALL of the data (the pieces of the puzzle) are brought together to give a complete picture, it clearly shows that guns actually SAVE many more live than they take, AND many of those that are taken with guns are of the criminal element, (there's no real loss there). So when all things are equally considered, I still fail to see the down side/negative aspect of the anti-gunner stance in any way, and always will.

**********************************************************************************

BTW - Many thanks to M.R. Chase, WMG-21, DumbFarmBoy, Lisa C, Nicodemus1946, Wall of J, Wake Up Now, Joe B. and several other for their great input as well.

Wake up now!

Your so called "references" were from 1992 and 1994... Why don't you find articles that are less than 20 years old.

Well smart@ss, there was a 2005 article cited. Since you are clearly ignorant to this fact, studies take time and money to do. Especially as the NRA can out-spend pretty much anyone when it comes to studies claiming the opposite. Those of us who advocate for stronger gun laws are forced to use what information is available.

PJ wake up and read,those people were shot by the NYPD,not any else but the NYPD!

So are you saying that Ronald Regan, Rush Limbaugh, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Dick Armey, and Donald Trump are part of what is wrong in our society?

Of course that's what he's saying. Those men were all filthy, evil whores who spat in the face of God's commandments to not have sex outside of or before marriage, and to cleave to their wives and not get divorced. These men helped bring down American society and made it - and marriage - into the ruins it is today.

Now, back to the subject of the story: yet another white male goes on a shooting spree and where is Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity? When are they going to denounce this latest example of white-on-white crime, which is at epidemic levels?

Of course that's what he's saying. Those men were all filthy, evil whores who spat in the face of God's commandments to not have sex outside of or before marriage, and to cleave to their wives and not get divorced. These men helped bring down American society and made it - and marriage - into the ruins it is today.

That's a huge problem with christian republicans. They are all too busy having affairs, trying to pick up men in bathroom stalls and getting divorces. Then you have conservative women like Ann Coulter and Christine O'Donnel who refuse to get married and have children. Conservatives are destroying out nation.

Yes, Christine O'Donnel and Ann Coulter (esp. Ann Coulter) are - according to Limbaugh's criteria - raging feminazis who hate men and family values. Ann Coulter is most likely gay, since she accepted a post as spokeswoman for a republican gay group. As Limbaugh would say if she were a democrat, she shoves her manless, single, lesbian lifestyle down our throats. Yet republicans have no problem with it, and no problem with their male politicians trolling for gay sex in airport bathrooms and texting young boys with sexual innuendos. The family - values, anti-gay platform is a smokescreen.

First, Ann Colter isn't gay. Being the head of a homosexual group and Republican at the same might be an anomaly though.

Second, and the reason for my post, is to question why New York's finest shot into a crowd of civilians. Every time a policeman fatally shoots the perp, the answer is that they are trained to do so. And I buy that, for the most part. But are they also trained to shoot into crowds? Especially since the shooter didn't? Even police on tv know better than that.

No problem, Spiddas. Good posts.

Here's the article link for Britain being the most violent country in Europe, for anyone who's interested in reading it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

I also encourage everyone involved in the debate (i.e. Pistol Instructor, MoonWolf99 and others) to follow the links I presented in my earlier comment, especially the two essays I quoted from (click the author's names). Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, they are well-researched, well-written essays on the subject of the 2nd amendment. In fact, both are included material in the American Law Review and Constitution.org projects, respectively. Good reading and have a wonderful, safe day everyone!

What is poignant here is the lefties aren't protesting one iota about the police hitting more people than the shooter did!

Where is the outrage?

It is called a double standard and proves their pro-control viewpoint is invalid.

I live by the 2nd amendment, it doesn't matter what kind of firepower I have, what I do have enables me to fight back and not be a sheep to someone elses' slaughter.

An unarmed person is merely a sheep to be taken advantage of by people with nefarious intentions and more firepower than the victim.

Funny, I've lived in the USA and traveled all over, I have yet to witness a single shootout, even being armed myself. The media likes to bring this all to the front but it's sensationalism, meant to get ratings.

What a stupid question, no wonder no one has answered it.

Ah, the thinking man's response. There's a reason why I have you on Ignore.

@ M.R. Chase: While I consider your actions to be admirable, I still don't see how the same couldn't be accomplished with a can of pepper spray or a Taser. Most of the cops in the UK don't even carry guns. They use pepper spray or Tasers. I'm not sure where Americans got this idea that, in order to deter a criminal, we have to kill him or threaten to kill him.

@ Spiddas: Please see 3) on my list. All of the sources that you cite are pro-NRA and, if you believe for one moment that the NRA doesn't tell you exactly what they want you to hear, you are fooling yourself. They are in the business of guns. It might be better for you to read Comment 1.133 from a person with real-life experience in one of the countries you're so quick to dismiss (Canada), rather than assumptions and "facts" from people who have never actually lived in a country with strict gun control, but somehow "know" that it will never work.

I live by the 2nd amendment, it doesn't matter what kind of firepower I have, what I do have enables me to fight back and not be a sheep to someone elses' slaughter.

I live by the 2nd amendment as well. I intend to defend myself against the christain sharia that is creeping up on us in this country.

Moonwolf99: You're beginning to scare me a bit because your argument has lost SIGNIFICANT traction with your last post. What you posted only shows that you have a bone to pick with the NRA. Maybe this is why you are failing to see things with any clarity. The facts and studies presented by virtually everyone are not FROM the NRA. They are FROM UN, government, and university sources. The NRA has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING most of us have presented. Any self-respecting, independent, critical thinker can EASILY see this. Obviously you missed the end of my post #1.210:

... I am not currently, nor have ever been, a member of the NRA. Hopefully that clarifies that this goes well beyond the NRA...

This leads me to believe that you are either a troll or a complete fool. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and refuse to feed the troll.

Good day.

Hit a nerve, did I?

Worth reading:

http://rush_awards.tripod.com/truthaboutguns.html

http://propagandaprofessor.net/category/myths/

http://www.commongunsense.com/2012/02/nra-myths-and-propaganda-part-1.html

http://www.commongunsense.com/2012/02/nra-myths-and-propaganda-part-2.html

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-47246.html

@MoonWolf99 and Spiddas

Although there is the usual NRA spin on this thing, there is an alternative. Even though I am NOT a member, I am seriously thinking about becoming one, just to stand post next to the NRA Booth at my local PA gun show... (because I disbelieve of NRA politics..)

There has been a TON of PRO and ANTI gun discussion on this thread. As a Liberal.... I happen to think BOTH sides are delusional... There is a middle.

@ Spiddas: Since you state an interest in the "complete picture", I thought it interesting that you left out a part of the article that you quoted. Your quote:

"Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest over all crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United states (446 vs. 2034 per 100,000 population).

A rebuttal by Police Minister David Hanson:

These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.

'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz24eJZvRAJ

With personal attacks such as "complete fool", "troll" and "delusional" flying around, it has become fairly obvious to me that the chances of having a calm, rational discussion have gone out the window. (Don't know why I thought that was possible in the first place. Guess I didn't realize how precious guns - inanimate objects - were to people.)

So, with that, I'm out.

I know what you mean, moon. The anger management skills of some pro-gun people, shall we say, give me pause.

Moonwolf, you STILL have not answered MY questions. Tit for tat. Why do I prefer carrying a sidearm instead of a taser or pepper spray? The answer is obvious. Never bring a knife to a gun fight. We were taught to assume our opponent was at least as well armed as we are. It does NOT mean I am just going to pull the trigger, but I am prepared to do so should the perpetrator pull a gun. It's too easy for ciminals to get guns off the street. THREE of those men I faced down and held for police were found to be carrying hand guns. Criminals, for the most part, are spineless, but WILL shoot first if they think they have the upper hand. I refuse to GIVE them the upper hand.

I do not disagree that CRIMINALS with ILLEGALLY CARRIED FIREARMS are a curse on our society. I don't disagree that CRIMINALS WITH GUNS need to be prosecuted differently and sentenced more harshly. What I DO disagree with is anyone telling me that in a society where criminals are armed I Should not be. Look to Chicago for a great example of what would happen if all honest citizens had their guns taken. A 28% INCREASE in homicide in recent months in a city with some of the harshest gun control laws in the U.S..

And it's not an "inanimate object" that's precious to us, it's the right to have the ability to provide food (over half the meat we eat in my house is game we harvest, and yes, some with a hand gun) and protection.

And don't despair, some of we pro-gun folk are capable of having an rational, all be it energetic discussion.

RonB, the lack of "anger management skills" is matched only by the unoriginal, inflexible, logic/ fact ignoring/distorting, media sensationalism believing, Bill of Rights ignoring, personal freedom stomping, criminal encouraging, Holier than Thou sheople that make up the anti-gun crowd. I find it hilarious that I do NOT preach that anyone should be able to do whatever they please, that there NEEDS to be laws regarding ownership/purchase/possession of guns, that though I am a RABID defender of the Second Amendment I KNOW there has to be compromise, yet all I hear from YOU PEOPLE is stiff necked MY WAY OR NO WAY thinking.

Don't go away mad...go away and GET EDUCATED. I strap on a gun every morning when I go to work, as does my wife. I have drawn my weapon when directly threatened. As a VERY LAST RESORT I know I WILL pull the trigger. Please send me a photo of yourself, so if I ever see you being dragged in to an alley at gun point I'll know that under NO circumstances should I consider using MY gun to defend your life as you would find it offensive!

"Gun control is the idea that a woman who is brutally raped and killed is somehow morally superior to the woman who shoots and kills her attacker." -- Unknown

"What luck for rulers that men do not logically think." -- Adolf Hitler

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -- Thomas Jefferson

Amen, M.R. Chase.

You're an idiot. There's nothing about this shooting or any of the earlier shootings seen this year linking the shooters employment status to their decision to commit murder. These shootings are the acts by various unbalanced or evil individuals and the responsibility is solely theirs. Not the Republicans, not the NRA, not Obamacare, not anything else.

In other words: The shootings will continue until moral improves.

You go on believing that. The next time someone loses their job and reacts by jumping off a bridge or wiping themselves and their family out with a gun, you can spout off again about how much smarter you are.

I'm telling you....unless unemployment rates improve, stories like this are going to become an every week type of thing. It's a long fall from able to support yourself, to getting spit out on the street because your UI ran out and no employer wants to touch you.

You're an idiot.

How rude. Who are you to say such a thing? Is that the only way you know how to express yourself? Violent crime does tend to trend upwards during hard times, and even if it didn't, the man has a right to express an opinion without this kind of unwarranted personal attack.

Hey Dumbberg, how's your gun laws working for you, dumbazz. I think it's time to out law people in your city, after all it's people who kill people - not guns!

**America's original Homeland Security - the armed American citizen and the 2nd Amendment!

If you feel the need to go out and kill innocent people going about their day because you can't get a job then you are nothing but a useless coward and that explains why no one would hire you. Look at yourself and stop blaming everyone else for your failures. Life is going to be hard at times and you need to grow up and stop expecting someone else to make your life perfect.

I agree with Tim,

Everyone has breaking points, as the economy worsens, and it is by the way, more and more people with lower tolerances are going to appear, it's inevitable.

gramgigi-

Thanks for the pep talk, but it's THAT kind of tone that can drive someone over the edge. Understanding and compassion works best.

Life is going to be hard at times and you need to grow up and stop expecting someone else to make your life perfect.

We don't teach our kids that anymore. Instead we give them all a trophy and tell them they are all winners. They have no concept of what to do when things don't go their way.

....and street drugs and prescription meds don't help.

I thought NYC didn't allow guns. Oh, that's only for law abiding citizens.

Oh, that's only for law abiding citizens.

...and only in New York.

Larry-2811441

You keep repeating that to yourself and blocking out reality. Our entire culture is a pressure cooker of corruption, greed and violence. These shootings are nothing more than a symptom of the popular / dominant values our environment.

America, the Land of Massacres by huge numbers of Mentally Ill people.

It's not the guns, it is the Murderers who need to be caught before they kill.

It is also the Land of Fear now---The US has it's own kind of "Terrorist".

When Microsoft puts up its news internet site, NBCNEWS will have the distinction of coming in fifth place instead of fourth place. Since when in America can we be censored so easily as to what we can read. NBCnews doesn't understand that when people take the time to write, even stupidities, they deserve the right to be read. Deleting and collapsing comments is censorship and we are not in CHINA!

NBC made a mistake taking on Newsvine and interns who have not been taught freedom of expression and freedom of the press and the freedom of the people who are asked to make comments to have those comments written and read.

People with guns kill more people than people without guns.

Just wait till they hone their gas-in-a-bottle and other such kapow things. Hmm, the cops just got a knife-wielder over by Times Square. Hope he wasn't swinging his arm around and slicing people.

By the way, isn't it tens of thousands killed every year by drunk drivers / texting&calling while driving? Don't forget the dumbarses who let their children play with plastic bags and 5-gallon buckets of water.

The shooter killed one person - his intended target. The NYPD went on a shooting spree killing the shooter and injuring the others.

Live each day as if it were your last. It just might be.