E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 9:47 a.m. ET -- An 18-year-old New York City man was arrested in connection with the shooting of a 5-year-old girl outside an apartment building in the Bronx early Sunday, police tell NBC 4 New York.
The suspect, Angel Morales, was arrested Sunday evening. He was charged with attempted murder and possession of a weapon. It wasn't immediately known if he had an attorney.
The victim, Hailey Dominguez, is in stable condition at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. She was caught in the crossfire at about 1 a.m. Sunday outside her Hughes Avenue apartment in Tremont, but is expected to be OK.
Police say the child had been attending a baby shower and was playing with other kids when gunshots rang out, witnesses said.
"It echoed, a loud bang," said a witness who did not want to be identified.
Also on NBCNewYork.com: FEMA Approves More Than $660M for NY Sandy Victims, Pays Out $250M in NJ
It was only after people fled the scene that the girl realized she had been shot. Neighbor Carmen Rosario said she found the child sitting in shock in a stairwell inside the building.
"I heard a bunch of screaming and went out to see what was going on," Rosario said. "I called 911 not realizing she was hit."
"She was so quiet," she said. "Then police came and opened up the jacket as I held her. She was bleeding."
The girl was shot in the stomach, police said.
Rosario said the children appeared to be unsupervised at the party when the gunshots rang out.
"There were no adults around when the girl went looking for help," she said. "It doesn't make sense."
View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.
Leave a Comment:
What kind of loser shoots a 5 year old little girl? I hope they catch whoever is responsible.
Lets hope they do catch the person responsible indeed
Why was a child playing outside at 1:00 am?
5 year old should be in bed by 8pm, not at some party. What is wrong with her parent? Heck, I'd be in bed by 10, I don't care what party is going on.
ever notice how many by standers get shot? who taught this guy how to shoot? or did he just get his training from a video game? a five year old's abdomen is about 18 inches off the ground, was he aiming for somebody's feet?. And there is a reason guns are not allowed in city environments, this is it. It's too dam crowded for guns.
handguns are banned in nyc......just saying.
Two crimes here. One is the shooting. The other is the dumbass parent that has a 5 year old outdoors at a party at 1AM. Sheesh!
"handguns are banned in nyc......just saying."
Yeah? Seems to be working out real well too.
Handgun is not banned in NYC. I'm from NYC and a friend of mine is a gun dealer there (legally), he owns a funeral home too. He likes to cover all bases.
Banned except for members of the NRA and people who are thug-alicious.
@lonesomegeorge LMAO!
There was more than just one parent acting foolish. The article mentioned many children playing outside unsupervised. I can't imagine any parent letting their 5 year old child play outside at 1:00 A.M. , let alone unsupervised. Then imagine several small children around that age, happening in New York City. Is it that people trust everybody? Have they no fear of strangers coming around snatching a little girl or boy? Are there no gang issues nor drug or other crimes happening? A shower party is a great idea, but why so late at night? isn't there school tomorrow for little ones?
Obviously with the shooting, something isn't safe in the environment. But for parents to keep their small children up, AND outside at that late an hour without supervision, just blows my mind.You couldn't tear me away from my kids until they were headed into their teenager years and I knew they could handle themselves better. Parents need to be supportive. We can't protect our children from everything which could harm them, but we should be the first line of defense to reduce the chances. Especially while they are small.
@ george pauljohn,
It's not that someone was shooting at someone's feet; it's more likely some low life was using her as a shield. Her parent likely, the one they can't find? Maybe they all should spend some time at the police station explaining how a 5 year old is roaming the streets alone at 1:00 am.
Silly me, I forgot, many people don't take their children to Sunday school any more. I'm really glad to know the little girl will make a full recovery.She is quite fortunate to not have been more seriously injured.I hope who ever did this is caught quickly and serves a long sentence.
For what good reasons does a five year old girl have for attending a baby shower, and outside unattended without an adult chaperon at 1:00 a.m. ? Perhaps it is the parents, who need some time in jail for negligence.
The mom was inside watching the stripper.
Even if it was 1:00 PM, kids always need adult supervision.
The kids who were playing outside at 1am obviously have idiots for parents who are in desperate need of some parenting classes.
@Goldfish: The "NRA folks" aren't the ones you need to worry about....They're usually the LAW ABIDING citizens.
The CRIMINALS IGNORE laws and are carrying illegally (Who needs a permit if you are already planning to commit a crime?). They are the ones often in posession of stolen firearms, that are shooting into crowds. THEY are the ones you (and Bloomie) SHOULD be concerned with.....
PS: After the recent incident near the Empire State building it seems the New York Cops don't care who else is in the vicinity either....but that's another story.
Its got to be a type O, I'm sure they meant 1:00 PM regardless it was kids on kids..
The article says "early Sunday morning". Either way the parent/parents should lose custody for leaving a 5 year old unattended regardless if it was am or pm.
The parents are good parents. They sent the kids outside while they passed the bong and snorted the blow. Sunday @ 1 AM? It's not like it's a school night and you have to go to work in the morning. (sarcasm)
People in the Bronx.
And Compton.
I thought maybe the 5 year old was selling on the 18 year old's turf and he was trying to eliminate the competition..
Glad to hear they caught the scumbag. Enjoy your stint in jail loser.
Good job police.
I'm a Paramedic in an average size city in an average state. You would be surprised at how many kids are awake and playing when we respond to calls at 1,2 and 3 in the morning. Lots of bad happens when the street lights come on.
A good lawyer would enter a plea of self-defense. After all, a 5 year old out and about at that late hour is obviously up to no good.
A very simple solution to many of these issues.... START PARENTING!!!!! What is your 5 Year old doing outside at 1AM!?
The parent(s) should be at least half responsible for this...what kind of parent lets your child out at 1am?? The fact, that this child was playing with other children at the time, shows the degree of where America is at today. In my opinion, the parent is doing a disgusting job and will get no sympathy from me. The child when recovered should be removed from that household.
1AM?
Seriously at 1AM?!?
NRA nuts in 3...2...1...
There are nuts in the NRA.
I am simply a responsible gun owner.
The people who did this are not.
But the gangs that terrorize your cities while you choose to remain unarmed ARE nuts too.
And so is any law abiding citizen who is stupid enough not to arm themselves.
I would give a countdown to the gun haters.
But you are already here.
I hope you have really strong doors, a safe room, and a planned path to come home in your armored Prius.
Gangbanger supporters in 0; because Quell has already shown his support.
what does the nra have to do with this?hell in ny-phucking city you can't even own a gun unless you are a criminal of course!
How did right wing people get this afraid? If guns did not exist, kids would not get shot, sounds simple to me.
No. If there were no guns, we humans would find others ways to kill each other. Just like we have been doing for countless years, coming up with every weapon we could think of to kill. Now the problem with guns is it's so easy to use that all anyone has to to do is point and click and they can kill you from way out of your reach and with (often multiple) attacks ( or bullets) that are simply to fast to react to. But shooting a five year old girl with a gun is no worse than another method such as stabbing her with a knife. It's just as awful either way. The gun is simply seen as more of a threat because it is a more powerful, ranged weapon which there is not really much defense for on a personal level. It is simply more deadly.
I do believe that it is the right of people to own guns, but only if they are properly licensed, without a criminal record (little wiggle room if you get into details but not too much), old enough, mentally stable enough, etc. And only certain kinds of guns with certain restrictions should be allowed, and certain areas should be more restricted than others. I don't think we regulate guns enough. Now that doesn't mean I think we should get rid of that right. I just think it's too easy for someone with a shady background or something to get a hold of them and fire a spray of bullets into a public crowd.
Now I personally don't own a gun because I don't like them. And I have never tried, nor plan to try, to seriously hurt someone. (Hopefully it will never come to that and I'll never be forced to defend myself in a situation like that.) But even I know that it doesn't take much to kill a person. You certainly don't need a gun to do it. I figure if someone ever breaks into my house I'll head for the knife drawer. Is it a good plan for my survival in that situation? Probably not. (I'm hoping it never happens.) But that's my choice just like it is anyone else's choice to own a gun for self defense or not so long as they properly qualify to do so. Still, it does need to be regulated much better.
Funny how Quell provided such an accurate countdown to the comments he'd get, in advance. Practically psychic!! Well done, Quell.
"I hope you have really strong doors, a safe room, and a planned path to come home in your armored Prius."
No need to worry, Obamas gonna give em a lift in the prezs bulletproof limo.
Now here comes Takenaka. Ban handguns.
They did tak, but the boogeyman still has em, ain't that some $hit?
NRA had nothing to do with this. Let's first find out if the person that did the shooting actually received the gun legally. But in my experience, this did not happen.
Let's remove the gun equation from the scenario. Could this girl have been injured from something else? A knife, a hatchet, a stranglehold, a poison, a bomb, a sedative... do I need to go on? The bottom line. If someone wants to kill another, it will happen. Anything can be a weapon, given the right time, the right place, the right set of circumstances. The weapon may not even need to be a weapon in the manner of context. It only needs to fit the need at hand. After that, you can depend on two factors - your local police or self-defense.
George Pauljohn, you cannot unring a bell. Guns DO exist. They will continue to exist until something even more lethal replaces them. Considering that they exist, and criminals are sometimes known to have them, some non-criminals believe it's prudent to have some, too. Shrug.
Yea BRING ON THE FIRE AND BRIMSTONE! End of discussion.
How many bloods, crips other other gangbanger members are card carrying members of the NRA?? Somebody always drags the NRA into a story like this when maybe you should focus on the area this occuured in, the time and why this child was unsupervised????
Well, maybe somebody should do a search to see what demographic is far and away the most likely to be committing gun violence and then we would not have to see all this wild speculation about NRA involvement. Oops, turns out it is not the NRA or anybody they have advocated for... its who? Whoa, we can't say that in this day and age, truth is the new hate speech. Somebody better call Al Gore because this really is " An Inconvenient Truth".
Wade: "Let's remove the gun equation from the scenario. Could this girl have been injured from something else? A knife, a hatchet, a stranglehold, a poison, a bomb, a sedative... do I need to go on?
Yes, you do. Much more difficult to be "caught in the crossfire" of poison, a sedative, a stranglehold, a knife, etc" There is NO "crossfire" in those examples you listed. Get it?
You conveniently forgot bomb in your "NO crossfire" list I see...
Yep! Like there's so many MORE bombings than shootings in the USA!\\scarcasm off.
Back to your inhaling, Vlad!
Plus you cannot deny the truth of what I did include in my list, can you? But thanks for playing!
Oh, I was simply making an observation, I don't care about your inane ramblings about inanimate objects being to blame for anything. The second amendment is there and protected for a reason and I don't really care how you feel about it. " Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
Disgusting, just disgusting.
yupp...those beans are work'n on me too...
What is most disgusting, is what kind of a parent would allow their young child out at this hour?
This family needs to be checked by Social Services, big time.
yes, because obviously the most offensive thing here is a kid up at 1am. Nevermind that there was no adult super vision. I say we kill them, kill them all.
You work within the parameters upon which you can effect an outcome; the parents of those unattended children cannot take away the guns from every hoodlum in New York but they can conduct themselves as responsible guardians of their own children and see to their safety... which they did not do.
A drive by shooting in New York? Where's the news in that? Shouldn't happen, but does as a matter of routine. However, five year old children up at 1:00 AM, outside playing without adult supervision? That is negligent parenting, and child endangerment... just for starters.
Doesn't sound as though the parent/s were anywhere around at all.
This was a case of fire not directed at the child apparently.
But why weren't the parents around?
This was a baby shower, not a wedding reception.
Because judging from the neighborhood where this happened, the family and guests at the party were too busy dealing drugs and collecting fraudulent welfare during the day. Baby shower? At 1:00am??? Guess they spent most of the daylight hours looking for the father.
When will people realize that no amount of laws, police, social workers, etc. will eradicate this problem. This is simply cultural. It is ingrained in the fabric of this particular element of society. You can throw all the taxpayer funded welfare/social safety net benefits at the problem and nothing will help. Hell, even animals nurture and protect their young in the wild better than the parent/parents involved in this mess.
what the F was a 5yr old playing outside at 1 am?
You haven't been to Bronx, NY, have you?
Agree there wheels460, wtf was a five year old doing outside at 1AM SMH
indeed....in the Bronx, no responsible parent would allow their child to stay up past 4am
Also what baby shower goes on until 0100? Really? What time did it start 2300? I am beginning to doubt it was a baby shower at all. Maybe it was a story concocted by the mother/father/someone in charge to cover his/her own butt! Who leaves a GROUP of children out on their own at 0100? The whole lot should be investigated by CPS.
Visiting hours at the jail is during daylight, that's when they went to see the father so they had to have the shower at night.
A 5 year old attending a baby shower at 1 A.M....right...
Parents should be investigated.
That's if they can determin who the father is first CoCo... (awe... lighten up people)...
Yah a 5 year old out at 1 a.m. unsupervised?!! If her parents aren't brought up on child neglect charges THAT will be a crime too!
I'm glad the little girl will recover and hope whoever is responsible is caught. Who in their right mind would allow a 5 year old outside, unsupervised @ around 1:00 am?
Get paid per child, anymore questions.
Welfare receipents at their best....WTF lets a 5 YO play outside at 1AM? WELFARE IDIOTS!!
Hell, if they lose one to stray gunfire or something they can always pump out another to keep the roster going.
That is so mean..what is wrong with you people, an innocent child has been shot..child protection services needs to step in here and remove this child and any others from the parents..
this is jut impossible everyone knows you can't own a gun in nyc!
Except the criminal's, but that's a logic the liberals can't figure out.
Oh hell, they realize it, they just like being helpless and under the gun, that's all.
Str8jkt82, please get your facts correct. You are permitted the opportunity to own a gun in NYS.
source: gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/new-york-gun-laws
New York Gun Laws
Due to its drastic diversity of landscapes, New York's gun laws are perhaps the most complex and confusing in the country. Before detailing the intricacies of such laws, one must be aware of New York's general principle: hand gun laws are the most strict in the nation, while the possession or purchasing of hunting firearms such as rifles and shotguns is only regulated in New York City. The reason for this drastic contrast is simple to understand. Legislators and law enforcement want to keep New York City as safe as possible. A quick chart will further detail such a differentiating sentiment.
New York's stance on rifles and shotguns
No permit necessary to purchase
Registration is only necessary in New York City
Licensing of ownership is only necessary in New York City
A permit to carry or conceal is only necessary in New York City
New York's hand gun laws
A permit is required to purchase handguns
Registration is necessary under handgun laws
Licensing of ownership is required
A permit to carry is required
To further elaborate the state's rigorous handgun laws ,one must have an understanding of how meticulous the procedures are. The application for a handgun license begins at the local police department where a background check and fingerprinting will be administered. Once approved, the application will then get passed to the New York State Police Department where personal references are mandatory for consideration. These references will include family members and close friends who can attest to the applicant's good moral character. New York handgun laws are filled with legislative red tape to delay such procedures; a license will be awarded within 4-6 months of the application's filing date.
According to New York's handgun laws, a license is also necessary to possess a handgun in one's home or place of business. Applications are made to the licensing officer of the city or county where the applicant resides or works. Unlike most licenses, the right to possess is completely up to the discretion of the licensing officer. Aliens who are not of proper citizenship can receive a license to possess if such basic requirements are met: Applicant must be of good moral character, at least 21 years of age, clean criminal record, and no history or evidence of mental illness or addiction to drugs/alcohol.
After the information is gathered, it is sent to the FBI for a full background check. The licensing officer can request further documentation, but the entire process will take 6 months in total. It is considered unlawful for any individual to carry, possess, or transport a handgun without a valid New York driver's license.
Dissimilar to most states in the union, New York also requires a registration of handguns and pistols. Under the handgun laws of New York, a pistol that is loaded and fired without registration will warrant felony charges. Registration procedures and fees vary greatly based on jurisdiction or county. Urban areas in New York are allowed to adopt their own policies and laws if their population exceeds 100,000. This unique provision in state law requires one to be familiar with the differing sentiments on concealed gun laws throughout the state.
Under New York handgun laws, a license to possess a handgun also serves as a license to carry throughout the state (New York City does not apply.) A pistol may be carried outside of one's home if proper cause is exhibited-such as hunting or target shooting. Under current concealed gun law, and New York's general handgun laws, it is nearly impossible to be issued carrying license in New York City.
Exceptions to this rule include celebrities or security officers, but even then they are issued with on-premise possession only. Other counties have adopted similar stances, where it is only legal to carry a weapon to and from a shooting range or on a job that involves weapon use. Counties upstate which are rural and have lenient concealed gun laws do not restrict possession or concealment of firearms.
Based on the state's hand gun laws, it is no surprise that dealers of firearms also are under severe restriction. Like buyers, a distributor must be licensed, is required to document all sales made and report those details to local and state officials. In addition, routine police inspections are made to retail gun shops annually. Assault weapons are also banned under federal provisions.
The varying sentiments of concealed gun laws are attributed to cultural forces present in New York. Rural counties that are found upstate possess sprawling hunting grounds and are delegated under more conservative watch. New York state and New York city are two very different worlds, and the varying concealed gun laws (as well as gun control in general) reflect these two opposing cultures.
If you read the hightlighed portion in bold, it states, nearly impossible to receive a carrying license, not that it is illegal in NYC to possess a hand-gun. It just means, that a State issued license to possess a fire-arm in the rest of the state does not grant the person the right to carry a hand-gun in NYC like it does elsewhere in the state. A hunting rifle/shotgun is a different story in NYS.
Please get your facts correct before stating, you can't get a gun or have a gun in NYC...
New York State has it right. Make it difficult and make it easy for law enforcers to make arrests for illegal gun possession.
"New York State has it right. Make it difficult and make it easy for law enforcers to make arrests for illegal gun possession."
Yeah, right tak, and a 5 yr old still got shot, and no one knows who done it, and the chances of the perp ever getting caught are so slim that it will probably never happen, and IF they do some panty waist liberal judge will sentence the perp 5-10 yrs and the state parole bd will put the low life scum back on the street in 1-2 yrs and this time said low life scum will kill, and there's a good chance he already has, instead of injure and the viscious cycle never ends. Yeah tak NYS definitely has it RIGHT.
FH2012--thank you for your explanation. I don't always read posts that long, but I was curious so I read it--good explanation, and again, thank you. I live in Bakersfield, CA and my husband and I own firearms--we hunt. We are also law abiding citizens, and very VERY careful to always follow all safety precautions. I'm glad that we do not live in an area that makes it so difficult to be a law abiding firearms owning citizen. I also understand peoples trepidation regarding firearms, and I wish how I wish that we could somehow be sure that the only people who owned firearms were law abiding citizens. Unfortunately, the reality of human nature is that the very definition of 'law abiding' flies in the face of criminals, and criminals tend to laugh at laws.
Midnight: "Yeah, right tak, and a 5 yr old still got shot, and no one knows who done it, and the chances of the perp ever getting caught are so slim that it will probably never happen, etc"
WRONG! From the article:
But thanks for playing!
Hey dude, thanks for the head up, but I started on this one right after it was posted yesterday. I am well aware of the fact at this time that he scumbag has been apprehended though.
It sounds like a nice place and a bunch of great people in this neighborhood. It's good to go to the school of hard knocks when you're a 5 year old.
Who attends a baby shows at 1AM???????????
It must have been a hell of a party...
Is that right? 1 a.m.? A 5 year old up at 1 a.m. at a baby shower and playing outside at this hour. Does children not have a bed time anymore?
The comment "It doesn't make sense" by one observer......the whole story doesn't make sense. Where is her mother, why is a child at a baby shower, who would shoot a 5 year old, what the he(( was this child doing up at 1am, sitting in a stairwell???? Every one of these people ought to go to jail for being stupid and child endangerment.
That's what the gov pays them to do, didn't you know that?
Why do they bother to call them "apartments" when we all know it happened outside the projects?
NYC is almost a police state. How did this happen?
Maybe if it was (a police state), this wouldn't have (happened).
Let's put our national guard to good use. Send them into the worst areas in the USA...including Detroit - to assist the police.
'bout time!
Nancy, please go to school.. You don't understand anything.
There is so much i would like to say to the posters on this page, but i would probably get reported and be banned for 24 hours, again. lol good night.
That's right Georgie, back to sleep now so you can re-enter fantasy land.
incompetant parents, which makes this an even more tragic and disgusting situation
Parents should be shot
running the streets at all hours of the night at age 5 greatly increases your chances of being the victim of tragedy. I'm assuming she'll eventually make a full recovery. Perhaps we should be thankful she was shot in the stomach and not _____— in the __— and THEN shot in the head.
If the child was not outside at that hour, she would have not been shot. The parent is the first person responsible in this sad and unacceptable chain of events. God Speed Little one!
Let me guess. Black, no one saw or heard a thing. NO one wants to be identified. If they aren't going to help themselves then they get no sympathy from me except for the children that can't help what retards they are born to.
A baby shower at 1 am? A 5 yr old playing outside with other children at that hour? You can't get any more ghetto than that!
Well the one good part of this disgusting tale is that at least they think she'll be ok. But even if she survives, and even if she has no permanent physical effects from this, the the poor girl may never get over the psychological trauma. But even if that turns out ok, and it probably won't, the danger for her still might not be over. What I worry most about, is how her parents let her play outside at 1:00 in the morning. And not just her. There apparently there were other children. And there was no adult supervision for any of them at this supposed "party" they were having. If you ask me, it stinks of something wretched. At best, the adults in charge were neglectful and the parents (if they were not the adults in charge) were as well. At worst, I don't even want to think about it. But there are some sick people in the world, and the person who shot this poor girl may be only one of multiple sick people in this story. I just hope they do a thorough investigation and don't let any of the children back into danger of neglectful parents/guardians or worse.
Ceasar Augustus said it best......."You can't get any more ghetto than that!"
Not "ghetto". "Barrio".
I'm guessing that this incident will not make it into the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column in their magazine. Yet often there's a fine line between that column and a police blotter.
Legally armed citizens don't go around shooting people for the hell of it.
There is a huge difference between: Legally being armed and Responsibly armed, Midnightridr.
Take for example:
The person in Missoure, who legally attained two rifles and some 400 rounds of ammunition. With these items, he planned on killing people at the cinema hosting the last Twilight movie in the series. Then, after he finished there, he planned on taking whatever was left of his ammunition, enter a nearby Wal*Mart and shoot people until the police arrived, using the ammunition from the sporting goods area of the store if he ran out.
That is simply one example that has happened in more recent memory. If you look at this single incident alone, it makes your argument appear or at least somewhat half baked. In fact, I believe your argument "Legally Armed Citizens don't go around shooting people for the hell of it", don't even hold any water at all.
A tragedy has occurred here. A five year old was shot. It doesn't matter whether the person was legally in possession of the gun that shot her or illegally in possession of the weapon. The only good news out of this event is, she will have the opportunity to fully -- at least physically -- recover from this event and live a much longer life.
Secondly, you had stated in two responses earlier to this article: "Hell, if they lose one to stray gunfire or something they can always pump out another to keep the roster going." and the next statement is: "That's what the gov pays them to do, didn't you know that?"
How sick of a person are you? To bury a family member is tragic enough, but a child, it is complete taboo and unthinkable for any family to even think of. A child should never perish at a young age. To assume: the family is on Welfare simply because of where they may live is one thing, but to believe the government supports the idea of a child being shot; or that a family would simply, again assuming they are on some form of Welfare or government assistance, have a second or third or whatever number of children simply for the reason of receiving the same amount finacial assistance from the government is outrageous. I truly want to know, how sick of an individual are you to state such a thing?
"Legally Armed Citizens don't go around shooting people for the hell of it"
Incidents like the ones that happened in Co. and the one that almost happened in Mo. happens because the gov refuses to mete out the punishment which is necessary to quell such violence. Period. That is the ploy they use to encourage such behavior in an attempt to piss off the people enough in order to further their gun/people control agenda. Period. No if's and's or but's about it!
"Hell, if they lose one to stray gunfire or something they can always pump out another to keep the roster going."
IMHO, if the life and well being of that precious little innocent child meant anything at ALL to her parents over and above a dollar amount recieved on a monthly gov check in the mail, then their sorry no good for nothing worthless a$$e$ Would NEVER, EVER have allowed that child to be running the streets of a hell hole such as the one where this unfortunate incident took place TO BEGIN WITH! AT ANY TIME OF DAY, OR NIGHT ESPECIALLY!!!!!!
"That's what the gov pays them to do, didn't you know that?"
Again, IMHO, the gov that we live under here in these United States of America has become, in the past 2 or 3 decades, THE most greedy, under handed, double dealing, totally and absolutely corrupt bunch of organized crime on the face of this earth! Period! Everything they do is done for the betterment of themselves, to expand their reach and control, and most of all to further the agenda of the very few who have bought and paid for them. I don't live in a delusional fantasy and attempt to deny, overlook, or sugar coat obvious reality simply because my mind cannot handle it. I just TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!!!!!!! I hate it for you if YOU cannot handle that, and I refuse to apoligize for it.
Hey Midnight,
Sorry but they do. The guns in the movie theater shooting in Aurora Colorado were all legal. So were the guns used in Nevada against Gabby Gifford and the people around her. I also believe that the guns at Columbine were all the legal, registered property of the boys parents. "Legal" guns can also be stolen from homes cars and even from folks that carry them on their bodies. Then they wind up in the hands of thugs and thieves or just normal people who happen to be crazy. Try living in a country that doesn't have a gun fetish, and you'll be surprised at how safe life is.
Allow me to re-phrase then. LAW ABIDING legal gun owners. Is that better? My bad, there is a diff, no doubt
No they were not.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm
Wow, my post got collapsed because of another poster. All I said is that the shooter didn't need a gun to try and kill someone.