E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPolice are investigating why 22-year-old suspected gunman Jacob Tyler Roberts opened fire on people in a Portland, Ore., mall with a semi-automatic rifle. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.
UPDATED at 3:21 p.m. ET: The masked gunman who killed two people and wounded a third at an Oregon mall packed with holiday shoppers before committing suicide was identified Wednesday as Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22.
The Portland, Ore., man opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that he had stolen Tuesday from a person he knew, Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said at a morning news conference.
“At this time we do not understand the motive of this attack,” Roberts said, adding that the suspect acted alone and apparently did not know any of his victims.
Jacob Tyler Roberts is suspected of killing two people at an Oregon shopping mall. NBC's Jay Gray reports.
The sheriff said that the shooter’s rifle jammed at one point during the Tuesday afternoon attack at a food court on the upper level of the Clackamas Town Center outside Portland. The suspect was able to fix the weapon and began firing again.
It’s not known how many shots were fired in the mall, which was teeming with as many as 10,000 people, many of them shopping for Christmas gifts. The sheriff said Roberts was carrying several fully loaded magazines.
After shooting his victims, the gunman walked down a stairway to the mall’s lower level, where he fatally shot himself, the sheriff said.
Authorities said Roberts had no significant criminal history. The Oregonian reported that he had two speeding tickets earlier this year.
Killed in the attack were Steven Mathew Forsyth, 45, of West Linn, and Cindy Ann Yuille, 54, of Portland. Forsyth owned a business at the mall, said Sgt. Adam Phillips.
Kristina Shevchenko, 15, of Portland, was wounded. She was struck by several bullets and was in serious condition Wednesday at Oregon Health & Science University Hospital after undergoing surgery, the hospital said.
“This was a sole person acting on his own by all indicators we have at this point,” Phillips said.
Courtesy Shevchenko family
Kristina Shevchenko was wounded in the attack Tuesday at Clackamas Town Center.
“There were no indicators that this was going to happen.”
The sheriff said authorities searched the suspect’s home and car, which was parked outside the mall, after the shooting. He wouldn’t disclose what was found.
A woman who referred to herself as Jacob’s mother said she is “very sad” and “sorry” about his actions. Tami Roberts provided a hand-written note to reporters via a friend, KATU reported.
“Tami Roberts wishes to express her shock and grief at the events at Clackamas Town City (sic) on Tuesday,” the note said. “She has no understanding or explanation for her son’s behavior and requests that her privacy be respected.”
Friends told KATU that Tami Roberts is technically Jacob's aunt, although she raised him.
Authorities said the shooter parked his car outside the mall Tuesday afternoon and hurried in on foot toward the food court on the upper level of the 1.2 million-square-foot shopping center. He was wearing a load-bearing vest and his face was covered with a hockey-style mask.
“He had a mission set forth to really take the lives of people within that mall,” Sheriff Roberts said earlier Wednesday.
Witnesses described a scene of chaos and panic that ensued, and some said they heard the gunman announce, “I am the shooter,” before he began randomly spraying bullets.
"All of a sudden, I just heard a series of gunshots … boom, boom, boom, boom, boom … whatever the shooter was shooting at, they continued to shoot," shopper Bill Hoff told NBC station KGW.
Mira Sytsma told NBC’s Matt Lauer she was walking toward a store near the food court when she heard the first shots go off.
“After the first couple of shots I had a feeling I knew what was happening,” she said.
Girl, 15, shot in Oregon mall cheats death twice
Kelly Lay was in the food court when he heard “two loud booms,” he told Lauer. Glancing to his left, he saw people running in panic. He ducked and hid behind a pillar, where two elderly women – including one in a wheelchair – had already taken shelter.
“As soon as I heard bullets hitting behind me, the wall, seeing it hit the tiles, basically the food signs above… and seeing the tiles break around me, I kind of got in fear and scared for my life,” Lay said.
He saw people running toward the exit and told the women to do the same. After helping the woman in a wheelchair, Lay took off running.
Sytsma saw one of the gunman’s victims lying on the ground about 50 feet away from where she stood by a kiosk. Turning her head away from the victim, she caught a glimpse of the shooter.
“I couldn’t really see his eyes,” she said. “I felt like I looked right at him and it was pretty scary to see him face to face like that.”
Witnesses Kelly Lay and Mira Sytsma recount the terrifying moments when a man opened fired at Portland-area mall, killing two before turning the gun on himself.
Sytsma and three other women ran for cover inside a store.
People in line to get their photos taken with Santa immediately dove for cover, KGW reported, while others hid in break rooms and bathrooms.
The mall Santa, Brance Wilson, said he was about to invite the next child onto his lap when the shots rang out upstairs. He said he instead dove for the floor and kept his head down.
"I heard two shots and got out of the chair. I thought a red suit was a pretty good target," said the 68-year-old Wilson, The Associated Press reported.
Sheriff Roberts said his department's thoughts and prayers went out to the victims and their families.
"For all of us, the mall is supposed to be a place we can all take our families, feel comfortable, this is the holidays … these things are never supposed to happen. We have a young lady at the hospital fighting for her life right now," he said.
The sheriff said the first officers arrived about a minute after the first 911 call and immediately formed teams to try to contain the shooter rather than waiting for a SWAT squad.
He said casualties were low in part due to an overwhelming police response and because the suspect’s rifle jammed at one point, though he was able to get it working again.
Also, the sheriff noted, “Clackamas Town Center had a lockdown procedure for this type of incident and they did a great job implementing that program.”
“We rehearse for these things all the time,” said Dennis Curtis, the mall’s general manager.
“Basically in a situation like this it’s either stay where you’re at and lock yourself down or get to the nearest exit and get out of the building.”
The sheriff also credited people in the mall with helping other in a time of panic and danger.
“Ten-thousand people in the mall at one time kept a level head,” Roberts said. “They got themselves out of the mall. They helped others get out. There are just a number of heroes that took the time to help people get out, whether it’s (a person) in a wheelchair or a child.”
Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts discusses the gunman who opened fire at a Portland-area mall, saying it "looked to be a random shooting."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Oregon shopping mall gunman identified; motive unclear
- Girl, 15, shot in Oregon mall cheats death twice
- 'Unique' smuggling attempt: $42,500-worth of marijuana shot into Ariz. by cannon
- Much-criticized 'drum major' quote on Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial to be removed
- Video: Driver ticketed for truck covered in Christmas lights
Leave a Comment:
At least he shot himself. Always happy to hear that.
If only that were his first action.
preferably at home...ideally with a rope...or in a tub full of water with a hair drier.
Let me repeat, if you are bound and determined to kill someone, commit suicide first. It saves so many complications.
GM Scooter
Gee, this POS decided to go to the mall and carry an AR-15? Wonder how he concealed it walking through the front door? You are spot on with MyMomDidn'tRaiseAFool that he shoulda done himself first and at his own home!
Sad for the victims that died and all of the victims that are now faced with trauma/PTSD.
AG, let us spend our energies praying for this poor girl...or sending our positive thoughts anyway. It might not help...but it sure can't hurt.
So how many more people have to die needlessly before we outlaw these assault weapons with the big clips? Their only purpose is to kill lots of people. Screw the NRA!!! Grow a set, people, and get these guns off the street!!! And, no, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. You can still own a gun...not just these.
According to those who support assault rifles, this guy was perfectly legal and within his rights and morally good right up to the point that the first bullet hit a victim.
Only at that point does he become a POS and deserve death.
Every gun owner has the potential of becoming a POS and deserving death. All it takes is too much alcohol, too much anger, or too much much craziness. It happens about 30 times every day in America.
Look, we don't let people run around with rocket propelled grenade launchers, even if those might be "legitimate target practice weapons." It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban.
Aside to Cassandra who wrote: let us spend our energies praying for this poor girl...or sending our positive thoughts anyway. It might not help...but it sure can't hurt. Unfortunately, it does hurt by distraction. Any minute wasted praying rather than arguing in favor of an assault weapons ban, is a minute that helps other mass murders collect their weapons and plan their "missions." Praying may make you feel better, but it doesn't do anything to make our country better. The real POS's who cause this are the NRA and the mis-guided gun nuts who think owning assault weapons makes them more manly. Put down your Bible, get on your computer, and tell your congressman enough is enough. Do real good in this world, not in your own mind.
Mass murderers' tool of choice? Why, it's the semi-automatic weapon, of course. So light, portable and oh so efficient!
there is much more to this story to yet come out, who was he, did he belong to any radical group, did he have a mental health issue, where did he live, where did he work, what is his name( he has been id, but no further info being released until they background this killer.
Hi, Scooter, Jax -
If I were going to go into business today, it would be to train canines adept at detecting firearms. I would market them to schools and malls and other businesses.
I'd even suggest that high schools introduce the training of canines into a tech program for students who weren't high on the academic scale but were interested in learning a trade. Guard dogs, companion dogs, all have a place, and working with animals have a soothing effect on even troubled teens.
@noncoms - if this guy did not have an assault rifle, he would have taken a semi-auto shotgun to the mall and probably killed even more people. what's your solution? Ban it all? how about a propane cyllinder or a 5 gallon can of gas? You can make serious mayhem with both of these items? A rifle is just a tool. Banning tools does not work. You have to look at our society - that is where the problem is. Glorification of violence 24/7 at all levels, including Washington DC. We spend more money on 'defense' (it is actually OFFENSE) than the rest of the world combined? You do not think that affects our entire society? Think again.
JCFromDallas
"So how many more people have to die needlessly before we outlaw these assault weapons with the big clips? Their only purpose is to kill lots of people. Screw the NRA!!! Grow a set, people, and get these guns off the street!!! And, no, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. You can still own a gun...not just these."
Define big clips? Most are only 15 rounds..same as a Handgun (10 to 15). Handguns users kill more people than Riffles. In fact, in 2011, more Homicides were done by a Shootgun than a Riffle. 350 to 320..Want to know how many were done by a Handgun? Over 6,000. You can find this info on the FBI site..
So you state we can still own a gun but not just these? Ok, people will just use the preferred choice anyways and that is a Handgun. Only purpose of a handgun is to kill people correct? I mean, look at the stats, more people commit homicides with them over a Rifle..
Look people don't like seeing other people getting killed. But unfortunate, our world isn't perfect and killings have been going on since the birth of man. The thing is, it will get worst over time. As cities get bigger, as our states get bigger, as our population gets bigger over the many years to come, more deaths will come by the hands of other humans. To the point where we will canabilize ourselves. A perfect example of this to understand is to take a look at one of the videos of the mouse plague.
Well, if his mission was to kill a whole lot of people, he was really REALLY bad at it. Only took down three people. As far as mass murderers go....BIG FAIL!
Ah, the gunbanners... always wanting to make the world as safe as Chicago and DC... one person with a CCW could've stopped this guy... wonder if this was one of those "no guns allowed" venues???
No, Oregon shopping malls are not "no guns allowed" venues. As to a CCW stopping this guy, possibly. It's just as possible he could have killed other bystanders. Turning a crowded mall into a free fire zone might not be the appropriate answer. We won't have a clear picture of this guy for a few days at least and lots of questions like:
1. History of mental illness (it would seem no criminal background)?
2. Where did he purchase the weapon?
3. If mental illness a factor, how did he get the weapon and who knew he was loosing it?
I don't believe banning gun ownership in this country is something that will ever happen (I myself am a gun owner). If the trend continues, we may have to look at "assault rifles", Saturday night specials and high capacity magazines though (no one need a 100 round drum magazine for target practice or even home defense).
But they wouldn't have. This is the fundamental flaw with the solution of a well-armed populace to stop a madman. A madman will open fire and wound or kill as many as he pleases. A concerned armed citizen has to have a clear shot of the gunman, which is often not possible. Plus when you have gunshots going off, unarmed citizens are as likely to tackle you as they are the bad guy. Armed citizens are just as likely to shoot you as they are the bad guy when you bring out your weapon. The situation rapidly escalates into far more chaos, possibly leading to additional injury and dealth.
Look at the Gabby Giffords shooting. There were people packing heat there, but they didn't want to pull their piece. It was not the armed citizens who stopped Jared Laughner, it was unarmed citizens.
Now look at the gunman who killed his co-worker last Aug in NY. The majority of injuries and fatalities were from the police, unable to control a chaotic situation.
The solution to chaos with guns is not more chaos with guns.
To all those anti-gun advocates, the shooter killed two people. The fact that he used an AR-15 is irrelevant. With a 9 mm low round capacity pistol, he could've easily killed double that amount. Instead of this conversation turning to gun rights, we should focus on education and ways for professionals to spot individuals who are insane. It was stated by authorities this man had no prior criminal activity or record of any kind. This is the scariest fact. Psychos are out there at an increasingly rate. Even if society made assault rifles "extinct" there will be similar negative results. We need to stop the problem at the source (wherever that is, leave it to the Dr's...)
Now is not the time to talk about. It's disrespectful to the victims. You see, right after any shooting is never the time to talk about it and since these keep on happening, we are never supposed to talk about it.
No @!$%#, really, is that what he was trying to do when he opened fire in a crowded mall with a semi-auto rifle, you've got to be kidding me...LOL!!!
Some of these law enforcement people are absolute geniuses.....LOL
You are making an excellent argument in favor of also banning a .9 mm low round capacity pistol.
So it's all right for 30 people to die every day while professionals figure this out? That's how many Americans die from gun murders every day. Do you seriously not see any problem with your statement here?
The source is gun manufacturers. That is where the guns come from. You don't need to have a PhD to understand this very simple fact. There will always be murders. No matter what we do, it is impossible to make the world 100% safe.
So your argument is that we should not do ANYTHING to make it harder for potential criminals to get their hands on murder weapons. Because we cannot stop every murder we shouldn't try to stop any murder. I get it now.
Byron,
Congratulations, you have overlooked exactly what I was saying and regurgitated the same argument we have all heard a hundred times. My point was that since criminally insane people can kill 2 people in a mall of thousands, no matter the weapon of choice, society should spend most of its considerable resources in stopping psychotic behavior from spreading to this elevated rate. I have no strong feelings toward keeping or banning assault rifles and do not presume to know all federal and state laws regarding these weapons. I do however know the basic laws for handguns as I own one. I can tell you for a fact that anyone at that state of mind could kill a half dozen people if prepared. Even if the most extreme left view of gun rights were implemented, maniacs would still terrorize innocents via explosives, melee, or otherwise. Had this been a man with an M60 mowing down 100 people I would completely agree with you.
I'll conclude by saying my position is that we actually deal with the problem of the criminally insane committing murder suicides, not restricting a type of weapon. And I reject your premise, each murder stopped is terrific, I'm no absolutist.
Well, it looks like the union heads threatening blood if Michigan passes the "right to work" bill have already begun to fulfill their promises.
I hate how everyone has such drastically different "solutions" every time something like this happens. People either think guns need to be banned, or they think if someone had a CCW that this would have automatically guaranteed to not have happened. There's no guarantee he wouldn't have killed anyone. What are the odds that out of 10,000 mall shoppers even if there was someone with CCW he would have been right there to stop it. Just like in Aurora. Everyone wanted to make it seem like a done deal that if someone had CCW there the guy would have been immediately stopped, even though it was in a dark theater with tear gas out someone was going to have the marksmanship in those conditions to take a guy down in armor. Please.
Same way banning guns aren't going to stop mass shootings. They'll find another way. How many shots were fired on 9/11? None. And without this type of weapon, the guy would have just went in with a handgun(which by the way would be much easier to conceal) and started shooting people. Everyone wants to act like we need to ban this stuff because people are walking around with fully automatic weapons mowing people down. It's still a semi-automatic rifle and the guy has to keep pulling the trigger the same way he would with a hand gun. Same thing with the KC Chiefs player and Bob Costas going on his rant saying it wouldn't have happened without guns. No, he would have just strangled her to death instead of shooting. Making a certain type of weapon illegal isn't going to stop people from still getting their hands on one and using it. If someone is intent on murdering lots of people do you really think they care that it's illegal to possess a certain kind of weapon?
Also IIRC, wasn't the assault weapons ban that was in place before just meant people couldn't produce/buy brand new ones? One could still get or possess used ones I thought. It's not like the ones in existence would just be taken off the street. People need to stop being dramatic and saying one far right solution or one far left solution is going to stop stuff like this from happening.
In Oregon? You really should put more thought into your comments witchrunner.
Really? Michigan, to Oregon, no doubt you failed geography, or did you even go to school... LOL
witchrunner
Congratulations on getting attention. Have you ever considered pursuing a career in policy development in say the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Thank you for your superior attitude. Obviously you know everything. However, in your immense brilliance, you have omitted to inform us what we are supposed to do about the 30 Americans who die EVERY DAY due to gun violence.
Your requirements are actually quite easy to meet. It is easy to stop psychotic behavior: take away the murder weapon and the behavior is prevented.
Let me help you out here. What you are requiring is that we preemptively prevent psychotic behavior. Not just prevent the behavior, but we prevent the beautiful golden child from turning into a mass killer. Well, since the time of Freud, scientists have been spending their greatest effort on this, and we are no closer to a solution.
Basically, if it takes another century, at today's gun murder rate of about 30 per day, you are suggesting that it is OK to allow 1,095,000 to die while scientists figure this out.
I didn't overlook your argument. I dismissed it because it is monstrous, callous and heinous.
@ Fed Up-2683606 wrote:
Ah, the gun-strokers theater of the absurd... always reliably illustrating by way of their juvenile and paranoid "if only" straw-man arguments that they care much, much more about their precious handguns and assault weapons than they do about the precious lives of their fellow human beings.
1 nut , and the gun grabbers want to take away our rights
1 nut? You're all nuts.
From the article:
No, he was legal until he decided to illegally acquire the rifle. It is against the law to steal, it is against the law to commit murder, it is illegal to commit a felony while in possession of a firearm, but one more law would have prevented this, right?
The Crazy's AR-15 Jammed so he could not shoot anyone else. Thank The Good Lord that weapon was NOT an AK.
I grew up in Oregon. I am now 66. I've own guns since I was 12. What I believe is the more guns that are carried around, means that more dead people are carried out. I know there a lot of cowboys around Portland, and they are trained and are used to these kinds of situations in malls, but not being on horseback their aim might be off. So better to have less colateral damage than more.
Why aren't we hearing PROTEST from gun owners on those who have semi-automatic rifles...and can't keep them responsibly ?
He opened fire with an AR 15 semi-automatic rifle that he had stolen from a person he knew.
(1) Was the gun locked up?
(2) Why would anyone need an AR 15 semi-automatic rifle?
(3) Why wasn't the stolen gun reported?
RI Mom
Excellent point. Gun owners need to take reasonable precautions to prevent their guns from being stolen, which IMO should be no less than a locked gun safe. Anything less is criminally negligent in my opinion.
@ Lunkystraydog wrote:
"1 nut" you say? OK, one "nut" yesterday ...and two precious, innocent lives extinguished.
How many "nuts"; and how many precious, innocent lives extinguished this week?
How many "nuts"; and how many precious, innocent lives extinguished last week?
How many "nuts"; and how many precious, innocent lives extinguished last month?
How many "nuts"; and how many precious, innocent lives extinguished this year? ... Last year? ... Every year?
And as the carnage continues, and more than 11,000 Americans die of gun violence on average each year in the US, you fret and wring your hands about the perceived threat to ...your "rights."
Please forgive those of us who are actually concerned about those "nuts" extinguishing precious, innocent lives by the thousands ... rather than about your "rights" and the rights of those "nuts" to compensate for their fears and emotional insecurities ...with handguns and assault weapons.
Some of us just think that's ..."nuts"!
Oh, yes... thank the "good lord" that only a few people died from an inferior weapon, as well as a less-than-accurate psychopathic marksman.
Jesus is just SO good.
Please.
Stop "thanking" your magical sky-daddy when things don't go as bad as they could have. Katrina could have killed 100,000 (praise Jesus!) 9/11 could have taken down more buildings with less time for escape in the twin towers, killing 10,000 (again, praise Jesus!)
Can you not see that this is not only folly, it's patently harmful to those suffering? "Oh, thanks Jesus that X didn't die... but yeah, Jesus wanted your daughter dead... sorry, his will."
Mythical nonsense.
The fact remains that banning assault rifles will not stop an insane individual from killing two people in a mall. In fact, taking away all guns would not have prevented this incident. Criminally insane will commit these types of acts. Society needs to reduce the level of criminally insane. I also believe that gun access must become more restricted. However this maniac acquired this stolen weapon is an issue that should be followed closely.
Through your sarcastic rant, you have illustrated your naivety. Psychotic behaviors sole solution is not taking away the assault rifle. You are dead wrong, learn to expand your horizons and see the truth of possibilities.
Jon,
Easy up. This is a chaotic time and people deal in different ways. I'm an atheist as well, yet there is no need to be rude. The man has a point that this incident could've easily been in the tens of people killed.
Keep your opinions to yourself Bob Costas. Guns don't kill people, people with assault riffles kill people. Guns don't kill people, 12 year old kids who find a hand gun under their grandfather's pillow, kill other 12 year old people. Guns don't kill people, people with 38 specials kill pizza delivery people.
We have truly been lucky that, in the last two attempts by the mentally deranged to commit mass murder, that they have fallen prey to the AR-15 fanboy kool aid. God help us when they discover the AK-74.
@Hole122000 wrote
And the common denominators are guns, ...and the people are dead.
What's the purpose of any gun if not to kill? A paperweight? An ornament? They are all made to kill.
With that hockey mask, Roberts probably thought he was Jason from Friday the Thirteenth, sort of like how that psycho in Aurora Colorado thought he was the Joker.
The suspect, wearing a hockey-style mask, opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that he had stolen from a person he knew, Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said at a morning news conference.
Did anyone read that part! He didn't own the gun, he stole it. If someone steals a car and kills someone while driving it, should all cars be banned?
@RI Mom wrote:
"Need", ...or 'want' an AR 15 semi-automatic rifle? I can't think of any reason why any civilian "needs" an assault weapon. But three reasons come immediately to mind why a civilian might "want" an assault weapon:
1). Emotional insecurities
2). Irrational fears and paranoia
3). Tiny little penis
Gun enthusiasts and their toys. It happens every day. And yet they whine piteously about non-existent government conspiracies designed to take away their playthings. If only.
These random shooters need to be profiled by the FBI.The public only sees guns.There is more to this trend. Guns have always been here, random shootings this frequently are a relatively new development. An in depth study on the shooters, the same as serial killers is needed. We need to know more about the shooters. Are they on Psych drugs ? Are they Jihadis? Likely there are common markers just like serials.
Robert in Oregon
"And as the carnage continues, and more than 11,000 Americans die of gun violence on average each year in the US, you fret and wring your hands about the perceived threat to ...your "rights."
Wrong..Since 98, according to the FBI data, there hasn't been more than 11,000 Homicides by guns. Here is the data for you the amount of Homicides that has happen since 98...
2011: 8,583
2010: 8,874
2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257
For 2011 here is the break down..
2011: Rifles - 323
2011: Shootguns - 356
2011: Hand Guns - 6,220
2011: Knives - 1,694
More people die from senseless Drunk Drivers, 10,228 in 2010, than those committing Homicides with Guns. But yet it is Illegal to drink and drive. Where is the outcry from people who commit these senseless crimes when they put the keys in their car and drive off in a potential ticking time bomb?
I always see the talk about carnage of this and that with the so call Assault Riffles when in fact it is very small compare to other stats. In fact, it has been going down with the exception of 2010. Here again are the stats from the FBI site going back to 2007..
2007 - 453
2008 - 380
2009 - 351
2010 - 367
2011 - 323
More homicides are committed by Shootguns than Assault Rifles...More homicides occur by Blunt Objects, 496 in 2011, than Assault Rifles, More homicides are committed by personal weapons, aka Hands, Feet, Fists, 728 in 2011.
The reason people think there is so much "Carnage" with these guns is because it's the media that glorifies it to hit a nerve with people and make it a hot topic.
Just like in the UK where they ban guns, knife violence went up especially with teens. So what does UK do? Ban knives and even if you have a Screw Driver in your pocket and are caught with it? You can be arrested for it if you do not have a good reason for having it. In 2010 knifes in the UK were killing 6 a week..oh I mean the people with them.
There are also 60 non-fatal knife crimes daily, with 22,000 recorded in 2010 for UK. So how is that ban working out for the UK?
Oh and BTW the penalty for just carrying a knife in the UK? The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000.
He stole the gun from a friend a few days ago. That made him a felon at that point. His friend should have reported the theft. Maybe he would have been arrested for the theft and the whole mess averted.
maybe we wouldnt have so many anti-gun nuts and gun nuts...if boys/men didnt value and enjoy violence/destruction so much.
as my friend said the other day "what is it about boys that causes them to turn everything into a weapon, a bouncing ball becomes a cannonball, a stick becomes a gun, a slipper becomes a grenade" and her son is only 4.
I don't believe it's genetic, but maybe it is.
Maybe as the gun nuts point out, it's not the guns that are the problem - it's people. Especially people who seem to love and value violence, destruction, death, and think it's fun to play/pretend killing other people.
Oh sure, it's all just fun and games...until someone open fires in your office, mall, neighborhood.
Then suddenly we all scratch our heads and wonder "why does this keep happening".
Because we are a society that values and loves violence, of all kinds, and any attempt to squash that comes with nothing but vile and anger and threats, from the very people who proclaim "its not the guns, its the people"...
yeah, exactly. we just dont have any interest in evaluating why we salavate at violence, and why our children, as little as 4, think it's fun to "blow @!$%# up" as a game.
"just boys being boys"...and why war is pervasive, suicide bombers and crowd gunners will always exist.
oh sure, the girls can be violent and awful too...just not in such high numbers, because as girls (and women) violence just isnt something we value, or play for fun.
OCinLA...they may be Call of Duty fanboys. But, video games aren't harmful, are they?
Jessica...I agree. Maybe it comes in cycles.
@noncoms;
Umm he stole it from an aquaintance, did you not read the article,he was hardly within his rights, or right mind.
@sailcat; Your lies were debunked last night by tiger. I would not call someone who has to steal their guns a"gun enthusiast" I would say more of a gun theif.
Why would anyone need a Cadillac Escalade or a Corvette?
My AR-15 kicks like a pellet gun even though it has luscious velocity and pinpoint accuracy. Keep trying, you're not taking it from me - ever.
Go ahead, make it illegal - I'll claim it was stolen then bury it. For the day I need it for my own protection. I'm not letting you psychos disarm me.
Face It People; ALL Guns are made for Defense/Offense. This kid Was Criminally Insane all alone without Psychiatric Therapy and that crappy AR-15 Did NOT Jump into his Hands All By Itself. Our American Society Glorifys, Gamifys and Otherwise Embraces Killing Violence 24/7. Children can go to a GameStore/ SuperMarket Kiosk and Buy/Rent Games of EXTREME VIOLENCE AND KILLING and bring them home to play on their players. America Is Number One in Violence, OR Otherwise would not be the "World's Cop" which requires standing Armies and Wars Waged "Whenever". Now, with All that Money SPENT, We, America, "Are Not Allowed" to have An American Universal HealthCare System with Full Psychiatric Teams and Authority as The Sane Countries HAVE; That FACT IS A National DISGRACE!!! AND THE WORK of the POWERFUL Insurance Industry and RolledOver/Butt Reamed Crapola Politicos In Power On THE Hill. We Demand Change??? OK!, We kept the Aristocrat's Good Ole' Boys, Rommel and Lyin'Ryan OUT, Now The BIG JOB: Flushing the Politico "LawMaker" SEWAGE Out of Capital Hill, Now Known as Crapital Hill. And Ironically, You Know What???? That Politico Human Effluence won't go WithOut A Fight, which Means Gun Violence And Lots Of It....One Hell Of A situation.................
The so called media, in the form of entertainment provider MSN cries first amendment as they feverishly try to present "news" in a way to eliminate the second amendment. It plays on the ignorance and stupidity of those who lack the maturity and the intellect to be able to look at the facts as published by the FBI and instead insist on hopping onto the "Ban" wagon, only to be part of a social grouping. This is the reason our country is going to hell. This is why your rights and your safety are slipping away. They go hand in hand. People are killed all the time by pets, by playing little league, wrestling (professionally) and going to work. Yet this propaganda engine will not run those stories. They perhaps don't produce revenue. Here's the math: Your government is screwing you for money, and the press, made free to protect you from your government is screwing you for money. And for you sheep consider the following, "assault rifles " like the AR15, when in the form of automatic M16s in war kill 1 person per 250,000 rounds fired. So come take my semi auto, I'll just replace it with a weapon which is considered by nobody (who counts) to be an assault weapon. The venerable Barrett arms M107. About every other round from these in the Middle east cuts the carbon emissions by one person. These are real statistics, folks, not the bullsh!t this so called news outlet is trying so hard to ram up your backside.
Guns aren't the real issue here. Yes they make it very easy to walk into any public establishment and kill innocent people, but what we really need to look at is ourselves.
Why do people want to do this in the first place? As a species we are inherently violent. Just look at the video "games" advertised every night on TV. They are all about war and shooting and violence. People find this fun, and we now have a whole generation of people who have been raised with violence and who are now numb to it.
Not to mention the fact that the people who do these things get a lot of press. Their pictures are flashed all over the news; people who grew up with them are interviewed and the news programs go on at length about "what happened to make this person do this horrible thing?".
They become famous. To a mentally ill person this human trash that does this kind of thing becomes an idol that they want to emulate.
If we want this kind of incident to stop we need to take off the rose colored glasses - and take a good hard look at ourselves and our society. We are all to blame for this with our acceptance of this behavior. We all throw up our hands and complain loudly about guns - and then we go back to our lives.
Until the next idiot with a gun walks into a public place and starts shooting.
@Tigerj wrote:
I see. So the key point for you is rebuttle of the numbers? The primary issue for you is that the numbers YOU cite above ("Homicides by guns") amount to ONLY 121,418 "Homicides by guns"?
That's One-Hundred-Twenty-One-Thousand-Four-Hundred-Eighteen ... "Homicides by guns" in the most recent 13-year period in America!
That's ONLY Nine-Thousand-Three-Hundred-Forty (9,340) "Homicides by guns" EACH YEAR, on average!
And you find this acceptable, and you find your own choice of statistics an adequate defense of guns, .......... because the numbers you choose to cite are somewhat less less than the 11,000 per year on average (National Institute of Justice statistic) which I cited for deaths by "gun violence" in America?
In your enthusiasm to rebut the numbers, did you notice that I did not use the phrase "Homicides by guns" on which you hang your slightly smaller number statistical rebuttle?
In your zelotry to defend gun possesion, do you realize how disturbing it is for many Americans reading your words to see your vigorous defense of ONLY 121,418 Homicides by guns!
Wow! I find that sort of disregard for human life truly frightening.
To Robert in Oregon
Death by Gun Violence vs Homicide? whats the difference?
Also who said anything about gun defense? I gave a case in point on the situation.
Yea, 120k deaths..Is that a problem with you? Do you fear death? Must you save every life on the planet? Do you not understand that Humans are cruel and also good? What you describe as "Carnage" I only consider minuscule. Do you want to see real carnage? Consider the deaths from Drunk Drivers "Carnage" as more deaths are cause by irresponsible people getting behind the wheel than from Gun Deaths Homicides. But that isn't news these days is it..When was the last time you hear someones one being torn from limb to limb because someone decided to drive drunk and kill a bunch of college girls? You don't!
Do I find is acceptable? Not at all. But I accept us humans what we are capable of doing. I accept there are mind twisted evil people in this world. I accept no matter what one trys to prevent, another will overcome it to do what they want to do.
Change my words from Guns to anything you like it to be and it will be disturbing for anyone and be the next talking point that someone wants to ban on the planet earth.
People kill, face it..accept it...it is part of life.. Tragedy happens..It happens today, it happens yesterday, it happens since the birth of human life and it will continue to happen until we are extinct!
That's my point, with my harsh words..like it or not..accept it! because you can NEVER EVER change that fact! All you can do is live your life to the best you can and to the fullest and teach any kids you may have to respect others while growing up. At the same time, hoping that others do the same.
"To Robert in Oregon ...
Yea, 120k deaths..Is that a problem with you?"
Yes, 121,418 Homicides by guns in a 13-year period is "a problem for me." And that you do not see it as "a problem" is disturbing.
But those are just your numbers. The actual numbers are far worse. For whatever reason you have chosen to disemble? If you are going to disemble in an on-line discussion forum you should cite statistics which are not easily challenged for their veracity. Using untruths isn't a very good tool for meaningful debate, ...if you wish to give validation to your point of view:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm
Homicides by Weapon Type
Handgun
Other
gun
Knife
Blunt
object
Other
weapon
1976
8,651
3,328
3,343
912
2,546
1977
8,563
3,391
3,648
900
2,618
1978
8,879
3,569
3,685
937
2,490
1979
9,858
3,732
4,121
1,039
2,710
1980
10,552
3,834
4,439
1,153
3,061
1981
10,324
3,740
4,364
1,166
2,927
1982
9,137
3,501
4,383
1,032
2,957
1983
8,472
2,794
4,214
1,098
2,731
1984
8,183
2,835
3,956
1,090
2,626
1985
8,165
2,973
3,996
1,051
2,794
1986
9,054
3,126
4,235
1,176
3,018
1987
8,781
3,094
4,076
1,169
2,980
1988
9,375
3,162
3,978
1,296
2,869
1989
10,225
3,197
3,923
1,279
2,877
1990
11,677
3,395
4,077
1,254
3,037
1991
13,101
3,277
3,909
1,252
3,161
1992
13,158
3,043
3,447
1,088
3,024
1993
13,981
3,094
3,140
1,082
3,233
1994
13,496
2,840
2,960
963
3,071
1995
12,050
2,679
2,731
981
3,169
1996
10,731
2,533
2,691
917
2,777
1997
9,705
2,631
2,363
833
2,678
1998
8,844
2,168
2,257
896
2,805
1999
7,943
2,174
2,042
902
2,461
2000
7,985
2,218
2,099
727
2,556
2001
7,900
2,239
2,090
776
3,032
2002
8,286
2,538
2,018
773
2,588
2003
8,830
2,223
2,
745
2,645
2004
8,304
2,357
2,133
759
2,595
2005
8,478
2,868
2,147
671
2,528
Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.
Considering we very rarely hear about the thousands if not millions of cases of self-defense (with a gun) each year, I thought I would post statistics just to put things in perspective.
Data from the NCVS (NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY) imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys.
Note that, as mentioned in the document: "that the interviews (for NCVS) are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government" and that "even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter". Which explains the lower numbers from the NCVS versus the 13 other surveys.
My opinion: I think that each of us has a responsibility to report anyone whom we feel shouldn't own guns (for whatever reason, the person seems to have anger issues, or is depressive, etc etc), then it should be the law enforcement's job to check on that person.
A gun is the best self-defense weapon, and if faced with someone who is endangering your life you'd be happy to own one.
The little atheist did not need a motive . He had no moral compass .
Responsibilty does not come from legislation.... just ask Congress
I look at it this way..I own guns legally, now wackos and criminals don't own guns legally. I hand my guns in to my local police dept. of course wackos and criminals will never do this...hand in their guns.
Now these wacko's and criminals go to shopping malls, schools, work places and shoot the place up galore killing people..what makes you think its harder for them to come to your own house when your in bed and shoot up your family? You handed in your guns recall? What are you going to do call 911? You wouldn't even get a chance to dial the 9 forget the 11 too ...you'll be DEAD!
Robert
"But those are just your numbers. The actual numbers are far worse. For whatever reason you have chosen to disemble? If you are going to disemble in an on-line discussion forum you should cite statistics which are not easily challenged for their veracity. Using untruths isn't a very good tool for meaningful debate, ...if you wish to give validation to your point of view"
Actually I do site where I got the numbers..I got them fro the FIB Gov site. But whenever I post a link, newsvine takes it away..So I can't post links..Need more posts?
Here is where I go if you want to check...
FbI gov site --> Stats & Services --> Reports and Publications --> Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States (All the way on the bottom under On Statistics) --> Pick a year ( I did 2011) --> Homicides --> Weapons --> Table 8 You should see Murder Victims by Weapon from 2007 - 2011 and the Total Firearms is what I listed.
Let me try to hack it so you know where I got the stats...
hwww.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Again, where do I state it isn't a problem with me? You are seeing words in my posts that I don't state. I guess you missed the part where I stated.."Do I find is acceptable? Not at all."
If you find it a problem..Then what are you going to do about it? You going to stop it? Blame the 2nd Amendment? Blame the gun makers? Blame NRA? Blame the parents? or blame the Criminal Thief? What are you going to do?
You know what..since more people are killed by Drunk Drivers bodies mangled, caused by people with professional careers, who are good people, who have families, who aren't criminals but made an idiotic choice..I suggest every single car that is made have a breath analyzer in it to start the car. If it registers .01 it doesn't start...That sound good to you? You lose some privacy, but hey..it will keep drunk drivers off the road correct?
See where I am getting at here? I don't own a gun, I am not part of the NRA, my parents never had guns and no one in my family I know of has hunted..But I keep a very open mind and try to be as realistic as I can on life.
He was motivated by the nuts who have been brainwashed by the NRA that you have the right to own every kind of gun. Although I guess he stole this from a friend. Too many guns out there along with AK 47 which should not be covered by the 2nd Amendment. Nobody should own guns.
I want that child HEALTHY and RECUPERATED enough to look Wayne LaPierre in the eye and ask that silent NRA COWARD some hard questions.
Reminder:
Aurora shooter had a 100 round drum magazine for his AR-15 too.
(Wayne La Piere....NOTHING...except BLAMING the President.)
Common sense tells you that ASSAULT WEAPONS KILL PEOPLE..... and apparently history goes unheeded...... This time: an UNLOCKED ASSAULT RIFLE was stolen and NOT REPORTED.
Don't know why anyone is complaining about my comment. After all the lies the libs and their media has come up with over the past decade about repubs and the tea party, I guess they really are wimps and can't take what they dish out. It makes sense that it was a union guy. After all, it was in a mall, which is symbol of capitalism.
@witchrunner wrote:
@witchrunner wrote:
If you're not just being a Troll, deliberately posting absurd comments, ...then you might want to consider counselling. You don't have to live this way. For starters, you might read about "cognitive dissonance." Good luck.
@Tigerj wrote:
It's off topic, but it's an excellent idea. Credit where credit is due.
This isn't about "assualt rifles" or large capacity magazines or guns in general. As Indogo stated, it's about people.
We will probably never know what motivated this young man. If we completely banned the sale of all guns tomorrow, there's about one out there for every man, woman and child. It is not even physically feasible to confiscate all guns in existence, even if most people cooperated. People who think otherwise are living in a dream world. And then you'd really need to get every round of ammunition in existence too. Making a crude but effective firearm is child's play. They have been known to have been made within the highly secure and restricted environments of prisons. You don't need a machine shop and they can be pieced togther out of common objects. It's just not feasible to eliminate all guns and ammunition.
In this case we had a person, obviously with some mental problems that had one of the more effective weapons around, with many rounds of ammunition and he's in a crowd of 10,000 people and only manages to hit 4 people, one being himself. This is absolutely stunning and seems to defy all logic. I almost wonder if the other people he hit were completely by accident. I really don't understand how anyone even with virtually no skill at all, could only hit 3 people in a big crowd, if indeed he was trying. I suspect this guy wanted to die and probably wanted the cops to take him out, but maybe didn't really want to take anyone else with him.
The guy apparently wanted it to look like he was wearing body armour by wearing the weight lifting vest, which would have zero effect stopping bullets. But maybe he was attempting to encourage a head shot at him assuring that he doesn't survive. At some point he gets the courage to take himself out. Maybe because his plan wasn't going right. We'll probably never really know, but I suspect he only intended one person to die, himself.
Whether or not my speculation is valid, what is clear is this was someone with some mental issues. There are literally millions of assault rifles out there that everyday are not killing people. It isn't the weapon, it's the person. There are a lot of sick people walking around every day. If they want to kill people, they will find a way. We won't stop them by eliminating all the possible ways. at best we can only hope to minimize the casualties and the most effective way to do this will be by treating the minds of these individuals. I don't even think that attempting to lock up everybody we suspect might be dangerous as being a very effective preventive measure either. And I believe there will always be some percentage of people that no one even suspects.
There may be ways that we can help people better understand that killing of other human beings is an inappropriate behavior. If some individual expresses that some circumstances may be worthy of another's death, are they someone we should suspect? How often on this very board do we see comments like "we should nuke them all" or "people like that deserve to die", etc? Are these people the type who could potentially someday turn into a mass murderer? Maybe, maybe not. But I believe when we as a society make killing people under any circumstance beyond our own self defense, as justified, we run the risk that we will be sending messages of acceptability to others who may not be so good at interpreting situations. We as a society seem too accepting of the idea of vengeance that goes so far as to take people lives. We justify it all the time. Some mentally ill people may not be so capable of drawing clear line as to what is an appropriate response. Some might even view a situation as being so threatening as to initiate a "self defense" response.
The point is that is can happen and it is more a matter of how people view things as opposed to having the ability to commit an act. Sometimes I think that we in this country often glorify violence and vengeance. We teach ourselves that it can, under a variety of circumstances, be completely acceptable. I think that sometimes we bring these things on ourselves but we look to something else to blame. I think we would be far better of by ourselves, as a society, becoming a bit more "pacifist" and not so war mongering. We should actually work at drawing clear cut lines as to when taking lives approaches the threshold of justifiable, and that should be a very high threshold. Likewise we should make treatment available to people who may not be thinking clearly, but remove the stigma associated with it. Not everyone who isn't clear headed will become murderers. And their situation may very well be a temporary condition that they can overcome. People go through stressful situations and traumatic experiences all the time and most get over it none the worse for the experience. Who hasn't gone through a break up or loss of a loved one and knows that for a period following that, they weren't thinking 100% clearly or logically? Just have too much to drink and you won't be thinking clearly.
For most of us, some time, and very often some good discussion with other people helps us get past these situations. Sometimes it could take some professional help, maybe even some medications. Human beings go through these things and some people may be more affected than others. Often times we can provide some help to friends and family get through such issues and maybe recognize when they could use better help. But a lot of people don't get the help or treatment they need. Often some even see someone hurting and see it as an opportunity to torment them. Kids are very good at this and sometimes adults are too. Somehow, even this cruel behavior is sometimes thought of or accepted as "normal". It's not. We all need to learn to treat each other better and when someone can use our help, we should do our best to give it rather than rejecting them.
The whole point is that if we look at things like this tragic occurrence and write it off as something like the "availability of assault weapons", we are missing the real root causes and not addressing them. The old saying that people kill people rather than guns kill people, is really true. At times guns may be the instruments, but they aren't the root cause.
Nothing about this makes me happy. Nobody except a soldier in combat needs an AR 15 or its clone, despite what gun nuts say.
Picture of a typical, responsible, law-abiding gun owner is at this link, which you will have to paste in.
cnn.com/2012/11/08/justice/arizona-loughner-sentencing/index.html
I'm typically a big supporter of the 2nd amendment and would normally oppose comments like this. But I'm beginning to think, yeah, maybe you're right. There's just too many psychopaths out there. Maybe we should have greater restrictions. At the very least, let's go back to restricting the sales of high capacity magazines. Yes, I know there's lots of them already out there, and you could technically make your own, but under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, at least high capacity magazines were harder to get, and cost a lot more money.
You are wrong. They are a legitimate competition target rifle.
The 2nd amendment was put there so that we the people can protect ourselves from the likes of you, who would put some Choom like Obama in power as dictator imposing your silly wants on everyone. You are no better than a Muslim.
I too support the 2nd amendment, but allowing access to automatic rifles is just plain nuts. If anyone can give a logically sound reason for a private citizen to own one I'd like to hear it.
I personally think that at this point we need to restrict access to bullets and bullet making equipment. After all, guns don't kill people, bullets do.
You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. You either want the weapon for competition shooting or for protection which is it? I have no problem with you having a handgun for protection and maybe a rifle for shooting but you do not need a AR(Assault Rifle). Say what it is a gun for killing as many people as possible as fast as possible.
Hawkeye,
I'll post this for you too...
I know this is going to invite a multitude of PERSONAL STORIES, about this friend, or that neighbor or yada, yada, yada, but the arguments put forth by some gun people, JUST DON'T work. And don't confuse this with being an anti-gun or anti-gun owner post. IT ISN'T. There are differences between gun OWNERS and gun NUTS.
The best "self defense" tactic, is to lead a law abiding life. The odds of you ever having to use a gun for defense drop dramatically when you're not exposing yourself to crime. Nor can you just blanketly say they deter crime. Gun ownership would only deter crime if ALL crime and ALL criminals were rational. They're not. The crack head who robs the local conveinience store, he's not rational, he's desparate and not focused on whether you may be armed. The gangsta in the drive by shooting? Well by the time you even realize you're caught in one, it's already over. The rapist? Well, they don't exactly announce they're going to rape you first, so sure if you realize what's occurring, can fight him off, get to the gun, and blow his brains out before he catches you again... I guess?
It's not that clear cut. You have to look at the circumstances of the crime, the mentality of the victim, the LIFE of the victim, the relationship between victim and perpetrator, and a whole lot of other things. Nor is it easy to, say in this situation, pull your gun and take out the bad guy. Tunnel vision, stress, panic... It takes extensive training to take on a situation like this. That's why we have POLICE. Plus, LEGALLY using a gun in self defense and using a gun in self defense are two VERY different things. Using a gun to defend yourself, is not so simple as merely blowing away the guy trying to jack your car.
Nor is comparing this to anything, like CARS, applicable. Cars aren't built specifically for the purpose of killing people.
And, who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government). Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them?
And please, if guns are sooo necesarry to secure our safety, why have multitudes of people never owned them, and lived long and happy lives?
I have no real problem with gun ownership, per se, but the pedestal some place guns on is batsh($ crazy. Please, can someone name any other inanimate object that we would take pictures with and mail in Christmas cards??? Perhaps this year I'll pose with Santa and my filing cabinet, or laundry basket??? This is such a perfect illustration of my beef with gun nuts. I've yet to hear any gun enthusiast make a rational argument or present non-biased data in support of gun ownership. They inevitably fall back upon illogical fear mongering, or personal insults when they're unable to answer my claims. The reason some people are so crazy about guns isn't because they're such wonderful tools of self defense or deter crimes or protect our freedom, it's because they're sexy. They make mundane, ordinary people, living mundane ordinary lives, feel excitement and power. Of course if you all realized that, you'd have to admitt that you're life is mundane and ordinary. And wouldn't that be a kick in the pants. So instead you buy into these fear mongering arguments put forth by the NRA, who by the way has a vested interest in keeping you buying into them, seeing as they make gazillions of dollars off our your illogic.
Firearms are used far more often by law abiding citizens for personal defense than for the horrible murders committed by deranged criminals. (Although this fact is rarely (if ever) reported by the MSM)
Guns act as “force equalizers” for all men, women, and children enabling defense from stronger, or more able, violent attackers that would otherwise not be possible. Please add this site to the list of those attempting to highlight the defensive use of firearms typically reported by local media:
www.equalforce.net
Please excuse that the format of this webpage, it is a blatant rip-off, however for the sake of expedience I thought the content was more important than the format.
Whether you are in agreement or not, please respond to this post and give us your perspective.
Hawkeyez,
Ah, but the real question is, who will protect us from crazies like you in a mall?
Secondly, what does being muslim have to do with not wanting guns? If you mean most Muslims are peace-loving people then you might be right there.
Peole like you are so blinded with hatred of everyone that you cannot formulate an idea clearly or post a single coherent remark. Thats why you have to compensate with a gun so that you can feel superior.
Equal force,
Can you let us know where you ripped it off from?
According to those who support assault rifles, this guy was perfectly legal and within his rights and morally good right up to the point that the first bullet hit a victim.
Only at that point does he become a POS and deserve death.
Every gun owner has the potential of becoming a POS and deserving death. All it takes is too much alcohol, too much anger, or too much much craziness. It happens about 30 times every day in America. We don't let people run around with rocket propelled grenade launchers, even if those might be "legitimate target practice weapons." It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban.
It irritates me when anti gun Nazis look for any reason to ban a gun for it's looks. Just because the rifle resembles a military type rifle does not mean it is. Because it is black or has a forward grip or is semi-auto does not qualify it to be military. You may not see a useful purpose for rifles in your town does not mean there isn't one in mine. This guy could have done more damage with a shot gun then the AR!
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm
I'm not saying that guns are never used appropriately in self defense. I'm saying that the argument of self defense is not as clear cut or logical as some try to make it.
As I said above...
The best "self defense" tactic, is to lead a law abiding life. The odds of you ever having to use a gun for defense drop dramatically when you're not exposing yourself to crime. Nor can you just blanketly say they deter crime. Gun ownership would only deter crime if ALL crime and ALL criminals were rational. They're not. The crack head who robs the local conveinience store, he's not rational, he's desparate and not focused on whether you may be armed. The gangsta in the drive by shooting? Well by the time you even realize you're caught in one, it's already over. The rapist? Well, they don't exactly announce they're going to rape you first, so sure if you realize what's occurring, can fight him off, get to the gun, and blow his brains out before he catches you again... I guess? Although you could just keep running at that point and not take the risk.
It's not that clear cut. You have to look at the circumstances of the crime, the mentality of the victim, the LIFE of the victim, the relationship between victim and perpetrator, and a whole lot of other things. Nor is it easy to, say in this situation, pull your gun and take out the bad guy. Tunnel vision, stress, panic... It takes extensive training to take on a situation like this. That's why we have POLICE. Plus, LEGALLY using a gun in self defense and using a gun in self defense are two VERY different things. Using a gun to defend yourself, is not so simple as merely blowing away the guy trying to jack your car.
If a gun owner's motivation is truly, merely, self defense, than reforming gun laws in order to better protect against guns falling into the WRONG hands, should not anger them.
This guy thought he was another movie character like the Aurora shooter or was he pretending to be the Micheal Myers masked version of Sgt. Robert Bales US Army child killer psycho? The USA- the Prozac drugged up nation that also has nukes.
He killed 2 people, and injured maybe a couple more. He could have easily done the same thing with a hand gun.
He was a law abiding citizen (no record per police) until he wasn't.
The Brady Center (a gun control organization) examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."
Know what that means? Gun murders ~ while this incident involved 223 only 4% of gun crime and murder involve "assault style weapons" - which are semiautomatic rifles styled like military weapons. And I agree ~ no one needs them. The small caliber high capacity rifles are not used for hunting - no one "needs them" but banning them is a red herring ~ it wont fix america's gun crime nad murder numbers. Illegal guns ~ unregistered guns ~ inner city violence - thats the real impact that could be made - start there - make cities gun free zones ~ The gangs dont hunt. the gangs dont shoot for sport - Follow NYCs lead and ban guns inside city limits and have incredibly harsh penalties within city limits. That would make a dent in the numbers, not a rifle ban.
Gun is just a tool. Like all other tools it is neither good nor bad. It also can't do anything on its own. It takes a person to choose to use it for good or bad. So comparing it to any other item is perfectly acceptable, since every item is the same.
So long as we want to ignore that the person is the problem, events like this will continue. Take the guns away, these people will use cars, swords, IED's, airplanes, or what ever they can think of. If you don't believe me then go pick up a history book and ask yourself why events like this took place before guns were invented. Take a look at recent history on events like these that took the most lives (Oklahoma, WTC Bombing, 911) and see what type of gun they used.
Lets stop looking at what tool these crazy people use and start looking at the true problem. The person because that is the only way we will resolve or make a real impact on this problem.
Yes, he was perfectly legal... right up until he broke the law.... same as he would have been had he bought 55 gallons of gasoline... right up until he fashioned a bomb out of it, and blew up half the mall....
first, i apologize for any duplicate posts or spelling errors, my phone doesnt like this site.
i need reminding, has there ever been a time when a private citizen took down a shooter with an AR?
if guns are equalizers then wouldnt a gun owner have to also have the criminal mentality?
do you think when the 2nd ammendment was written, they knew how weapons would evolve and meant every single citizen should carry an AR?
if guns a merely a tool, then its reasonable to say drunk drivers kill not cars. then why dont we allow everyone to drive at NASCAR speeds?
if AR are used for sport isnt that like shooting fish in a barrel?
are you suggesting children should be trained and carry weapons?
do you feel its reasonable for everyone to carry AR to the movies?
if AR are used for spoet, isnt that
You are making an excellent argument against banning hand guns.
Do you really think Fuhrer Obama, if he chose to become a dictator would care about any weapon you carry? He can press a button and you will die. Everyone standing within 30 miles of you will die immediately - and these will be the lucky ones. The ones up to 100 miles out will die far more painfully.
If you think that any silly little assault weapons arsenal can protect you against the might of the US military machine, you are very sadly mistaken.
If you really want the 2nd amendment to have any teeth, then support my right to keep thermonuclear weapons in my basement. When you do that, I will support your right to have any sort of gun you want.
Sarah, So what terrible crime were the two killed in the mall guilty of??? If only they had "lead a law abiding life" they would be alive today??? HOGWASH. And, by the way, the rifle was STOLEN. He was NOT a gun OWNER, he was a gun THIEF.
Steelers,
Can you quote where I said ALL you have to do is live a law abiding life? Or where I said bad @!$%# doesn't happen to good people?
Or did I say, the odds of you being in a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense GO DOWN, if you live a law abiding life. Not, go AWAY, but go down.
Let me ask you this. Would carrying a gun have helped either of those victims? Can you really, completely discount the fact that pulling a gun and blowing someone away, even in self defense, isn't that easy? Tunnel vision, panic, stress, guilt, indecision, confusion... Like I said it takes years of extensive training to take on a situation like this.
It doesn't matter how hard you can punch back, if you get sucker punched you're still going down. And you're still down first.
Congratulations, you have identified yourself as the poster child for why we need to consider reasonable gun control. I'll bet the NRA public relations/policy people secretly hate you.
The irrational, emotional response of the gun control crowd is highlighted by their calls to arbitrarily ban "assault" rifles. The question people should ask themselves is, Is an "assault rifle" any more deadly than any other gun? The answer is no. All legal guns shoot bullets, lots of them can carry multiple rounds, lots of them are more powerful than an "assault" rifle, lots of them are more easily concealable, and I could go on.
The fact that it has been dubbed an "assault" rifle and that it is black and scary looking has more to do with the emotional cries for a ban than anything else.
I think, how many more times is this going to happen before even the NRA will want to ban assault rifles, and high capacity magazines. What if this nut job had more ammo, more bigger clips, how many more people would have been killed or wounded. The people in that mall were lucky. There is no need for assault rifles to sold to the public.
Steelers,
PS. The people he stole it from were gun owners. What the hell were they doing with it, that they allowed this kid to get his hands on it?
I would have traded that AR-15 in for a jawbone of an ass...far more effective, and the jawbone doesn't require a background check.
Maybe not them but by eye witness accounts he walked right past many people, saying "I am the shooter," on his way to where he began shooting. An armed person stopping him before hand would have helped them. Hell even someone saying WTFOMGSTFUBBQ to themselves and tackling him from behind would have helped.
It says above that he stole it from someone that he knew, nothing more. For all we know that person could been in illegal possession of it. Wouldn't be the first time. That little kid that shot a class mate in Washington last got the gun from his mom, she had a record and was in illegal possession of the gun.
"or a clone"
Well given that there are pistol, shotgun and rifle versions of the AR-15, bolt-action, pump-action, semi-automatic, fully automatic and single shot versions of the AR-15, different lengths, different calibers, etc. what you appear to be saying is that guns should be banned totally.
I though Sarah was only an expert in deviant lifestyles. Now she's an weapons expert.
I will be lobbying the NRA to allow people to own Nuclear Weapons, after all nukes dont kill people, people who fire nukes kill people.
Doomsday Preppers has gotten me thinking...and ya know a lot of the folks on there are NRA gun nuts, and they have a whole cache of weapons, just waiting for the US to spiral into chaos so they and their guns can reign supreme, er, defend their land and their right to live...it just so happens they'll have to kill everyone who crosses their path to ensure they maintain that right to their land and food supply.
So, I figure, whats better than a cache full of guns - NUKES.
I doubt anyone outside of the mitten would even dare come our way if they knew i'd blast them into south america in the blink of an eye.
So, uh, why arent nukes available to every RESPONSIBLE ARMS OWNER?
nukes are arms, ya know.
wait, im sure there's a really good reason why nukes are not ok...but every other gun under the sun is.
Lee: "Gun is just a tool. Like all other tools it is neither good nor bad."
Not all tools are made to kill. A gun is a tool made to kill. I suppose it's your opinion whether this purpose is "good" or "bad."
What can I say, I'm a jack of all trades.
Even though you probably only wanted to make a sarcastic statement and weren't interested in an answer her you go:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
Max
It isn't the gun that made this guys actions good or bad. The gun was a tool used to carry out his actions. It was his choices that were bad.
Just ask your self this, would you still consider his actions bad if he had used a Prius to kill?
To all the gun grabbers and even those gun grabbers who are lying and stating that they are gun owners on the fence; every country which has restricted guns from law abiding owners has seen crime skyrocket. Every one. Every country that has outright banned guns has bandaged in genocide of its own citizens. Having a gun has prevented many times the number of crimes as even showing it, much less firing it. We have (the US - NOT ME) nukes but generally don't use them. Just having them is in fact use enough. (so far) Most often, the fear of encountering a would be victim with a gun will dissuade the vast majority of criminals. It is fortunate that those who are more likely to attack someone will ultimately be the ones shot. As for all the nuts out there, if they really want to kill somebody bad enough, they really don't need a gun to do it.
I could be reading a different article, but there is no mention of an assault rifle.
"AR-15 semi-automatic rifle" Arma-Lite 15 is a semi automatic rifle, the fully automatic is refered to as an M-16.
An assualt rifle requires
I'm an arms dealer, and I support the banning of assualt rifles for civilian use. However an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. With plenty of practical use. Convert the upper to .458 socom, or the .50 Beowulf and you have an excellent boar round, and if you know anything about boar's you know that you want everything you can get between you and that monster. The AR-15 is one of the best modern hunting rifles, able to convert to a wide range of ammunition.
Reporters...."It is still a mystery..."
Do ya think? Because it was less than 24 hours after the shooting when you picked this headline?
Hey, maybe do you want to give the police a chance to do a thorough investigation maybe? Before saying it is STILL a mystery?
Army yourselves America. Don't let the crazies win.
Especially when you are walking through the mall with you family doing Christmas shopping. Oh yeah, don't forget to be armed to the teeth when you are watching a movie or listening to a Congresswoman deliver a speech.
ok doug...
how many speeches were made this last election year? .....millions?
how many malls and shoppers were open to the same thing?.....millions?
how many movies where shown at the theaters?....millions?
how many times did a nutcase cause this kinda crap to happened?....even a lib can count that high ...here's a hint, use your fingers...on one hand....
Tramp - how many innocent people were killed by lunatics with guns this year? TOO MANY!!! Far too many for your right-wing fingers to count.
Scooter - ONE is already too many.
Let's look at a non-exhaustive list of 2012...
Chardon, OH: 3 killed, 3 injured
Tusla OK: 3 killed, 2 injured
Aurora, CO: 12 killed, 70 injured
Minneapolis, MN: 7 killed, 2 injured
New York, NY: 2 killed 7 injured
College Station, TX: 3 killed, 4 injured
Brookfield, WI 4 killed, 4 injured
Seattle, WA: 6 killed, 1 injured
Oikos, CA: 7 killed, 3 injured
Clackamas, OR: 2 killed so far, 8 injured
You'd have to be a pretty freaky mutant to have a hand with that many fingers.
Meanwhile 49 people, just from that list alone, are no longer alive. That's not counting inner-city gang crime, murders involving just a single victim, or anything I couldn't remember off the top of my head. So what is this ideology worth? It must be greater than all the people harmed or killed year after year.
not the point prag and you know it. he mentioned specific places i simply pointed out the obvious.
Do you quit eating because of a food poisoning? flying because of a plane crash, going into buildings with more then one floor because of 9/11? driving because of car wrecks, the list is endless.I have seen you on here for years prag and KNOW you are not that naive to acquaint one point to another as i just have. Many however do not have that comprehension ability, as you well know.
That's right...Enlist Today...Army Strong!
That's some funny stuff.
I vote we institute a safety-scissors law. Look at how many people have been
killed or seriously wounded by those fancy pointed scissors? Nobody needs such
fancy scissors to simply cut paper. Safety scissors do exactly the same job
without the worry of them becoming misused as weapons.
I vote we outlaw all water sports and activities. Look at how many children,
adults and pets are killed every year in the pursuit of water recreation (about
10 people each day – Source: CDC web site).
I vote we require all highways to enact 25 mph speed limits. After all, who in
their right mind would get in a car and travel 55+ mph when the bumpers are
only rated for 5mph impacts? Crazy I tell you! (average 108 people per day from
2005 through 2009 – source: US Census Bureau)
While we are at it, we need to start dismembering ourselves. After all, feet and elbows and knees and
fists are all deadly weapons resulting in 861 deaths (about 2 per day) in 2008.
(source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
I wonder to what "well-regulated militia" this fellow belonged?
Actually I didn't know it. I didn't read the context of the discussion. My fault.
Great job this time NRA. Your influence is everywhere, everyday. Fantastic lobbyists you have and brilliant to pander to the insecure macho types who feel impotent to make it through the day without their bicky weapon.A very Merry Christmas to you NRA and Peace on Earth to All.
Exactly, and the classic comeback is that "guns don't kill, people do".. Funny thing is that I do not see a lot of reports where a man killed 3 people in a mall with his bare fists, or a buck knife, or with his karate skills. And even if one or two did, it pales in comparison to the 50K killed annually by gun violence. Sad that the gun enthusiasts have been sprayed with anti-reasoning powder... nothing seems to get through to them, but their right to bear arms is being payed by these victims. I hope they understand that, but I'm not expecting much from this lot...
There are dozens of stories of guns 'preventing' violence and saving lives across the country every week, however these stories aren't the liberal media's 'cup of tea'.... and just aren't important enough to be reported!
case in point: A few weeks ago, a fellow co-worker in our firm stopped an attempted car jacking of his car when he pointed his pistol at the perpetrator, who ran away. This was reported to the police but didn't show up in the news. Maybe if he shot the a$$hole it would have been newsworthy and more fodder for gun control nuts!
Guns save lives, that's why we are allowed to own them folks! Liberal laws that let violent criminals go free, now that is a crime that shouldn't happen!
No problem with a pistol. Maybe only 10 bullets in it. But a gun that is capable of holding 60 rounds should be banned.
Memphis - Unless he pointed a AR-15 at this carjacking perp, it's not relevant. These assault rifles and large clips should be banned. No all guns.
Memphis Kelley--How big was the fish? I know a guy who foiled a carjacking, rape and extortion with a piece of gum. Not sure why that didn't make the paper either.
I purchased a new rifle for my daughter for Christmas. She will someday have to defend herself from your gay son.
doug...very simple...it was the FOOL not the TOOL.........
Firearms are used far more often by law abiding citizens for personal defense than for the horrible murders committed by deranged criminals. (Although this fact is rarely (if ever) reported by the MSM)
Guns act as “force equalizers” for all men, women, and children enabling defense from stronger, or more able, violent attackers that would otherwise not be possible. Please add this site to the list of those attempting to highlight the defensive use of firearms typically reported by local media:
www.equalforce.net
Please excuse that the format of this webpage, it is a blatant rip-off, however for the sake of expedience I thought the content was more important than the format.
Whether you are in agreement or not, please respond to this post and give us your perspective.
Anybody notice that when the firearm in the incident is a rifle then it's 'handguns are ok, just not rifles with big clips'? If it's a handgun then it's 'nobody needs handguns, rifles are fine'? And, by the way, an 'assault rifle' is just a style, it doesn't have any more power (in fact it is less accurate) than a hunting rifle, the guts are the same. And they aren't 'automatic'.
charlie-295522
50K... what a liar you are... throw out cops lawfully using deadly force... throw out accidental shootings (sad but a very low number), throw out citizens legally defending themselves... and what you're left with is Obama voters killing themselves in the inner cities.... stop coddling gangbangers and that number will go down too....
Kamaaina has drunk a little too much from the wacko libbie fountain. Not the kind of guy you'd want around if you needed help.... he'd be the one on the floor sobbing!
Kamaaina has drunk a little too much from the wacko libbie fountain
crossfire, yeah, Ive read too many of Kam's strident posts to know he doesn't believe anything unless he hears it from the old liberal media or Dave Letterman, lol! the ignore button works pretty well...
Here's something to think about. About 200,000 people made the trip to Oregon from back East on the Oregon Trail and some reports claim that the second leading cause of injuries and deaths, were accidents with firearms. These accidents happened to people that were generally unfamiliar with guns, just like today. People who carry guns don't use them in times of crisis. Ask the police how many times they use their service revolvers during their careers? Seldom if ever. The only people who are really qualified to handel firearms are the military men and women.
EqualForce: "Guns act as “force equalizers” for all men, women, and children enabling defense from stronger, or more able, violent attackers that would otherwise not be possible
So equalforce is advocating guns for "all...CHILDREN?" And Crossfire thinks that Kamaaina has "drunk.. too much from the wacko libbie fountain?"
SERIOUSLY? Wow...
A terrible tragedy. The rest of the people at the mall are lucky he didn't kill more before he shot himself.
If he had no prior record, how did they use his fingerprints to identify him?
Lots of people have their fingerprints on record. Everyone who was naturalized, anyone who applied for law enforcement or the military, any job that requires a security clearance. It's not surprising.
Even jobs that don't require a security clearance, just needing to be badged to a NASA facility requires fingerprinting now.
When I sold cars I had to be fingerprinted. i never knew why.
We always seem to know more about the gun than the shooter, why is that?
the medias way of screaming ....BOO !!!...expect more of this kinda thing...........along with nothing but "good numbers" .....and lib rants that go to the extreme so bad that you need a rabies shot just to read em...
Very perceptive observation.Every contact this man had for the past 6 months should be under a microscope.
Who was his shrink and what meds was he on?
The only thing we will hear is he had an "assault" rifle and large magazines.....these are like staged events with no motives ever given and damn little conclusions ever made.
The clown who shot up the movie theatre comes to his hearing with orange hair,incoherent and high as a kite and the judge thinks thats OK.
yeah i've noticed that too. seems the stories revolve around the weapons used in attacks and the person using them is somehow irrelevant.
we have had guns in this country for its entire existance. we didnt have stuff like this happen back in the 40's 50's 70's etc. hell you used to be able to wolk into a sporting goods store and buy a full auto machine gun prior to 1986. but there were no rampages like this.
the guns havent changed, so thats not the cause.
its people that have changed. a combination of glorifying violence and psychotropic drugs handed out like aspirin to the masses are the biggest culprits. add a bit of terrible parenting and people's selfish " i only care about me " attitudes and over the course of a generation you get a country full of lunatics.
the more i see things like this happen the more it reinforces my belief that society is to blame for these incidents. i dont know why people cant see this.....
Because the media's trying to get their anti-gun puppets worked up. Plain and simple.
It's news-worthy because it doesn't figure into the normal risk calculation. A family crashes in a car on the way to the mall and all are killed. Tragic, it will get a spot on the local news and be forgotten by the media in 24 hours. A hunter accidentally kills his friend. Tragic, it will get a spot on the local news and be forgotten in 24 hours. Both of these are assumed risks for the activity. Getting shot at by a nut doesn't figure into the risk calculation.
Yes we did. In 1940, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1958, two in 1965, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, three in 1977, 1979, etc.
While we have a slightly increased amount of violence now versus then, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Glorifying violence has always been done. But what you had in the US in the 40's was a male population off to war. In the 50's you had a male population sick of war. Once the boomers started growing up, they became violent. Hence an uptick in the 70's. They didn't experience total war like their parents.
Parenting can be linked directly to the collapse of the single income household in the 70's. This coincides with the meteoric rise of executive compensation packages. People get selfish because they need more resources to have a fully functional household. This really came to a head in the 80's with greed practically becoming the official religion of the nation.
So you've got a generation raised by violent TV in relative safety because both parents had to greedily scrape up every resource to make ends meet.
Or maybe it's just easier to blame Ayn Rand and her individualistic "screw society" philosophies and the folks who eat that up.
The right to bear arms was meant to allow citizens to overthrow a corrupt government if the need arose, and to protect their families from abuse from said government. Guns should not be permitted outside a residence, period, and even then they should be limited to handguns and rifles only.
I support the right to bear arms, within limits. More guns does not mean more protection, it means a greater chance someone will snap and kill others.
The right to bear arms, as mentioned in the Constitution does not say The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for the limits.
That has to be one of the only well-reasoned responses I've ever seen on this website. Everyone is so quick to defend the absolute most polarized ideals and it gets us nowhere.
You're correct about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. As such, the AR-15 is EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment allows us to have. Just look as US v Miller where the Supreme Court ruled that because there was no evidence that a weapon was in common usage by modern military, it wasn't protected under the 2nd Amendment. Military grade weapons are exactly what it protects.
I respectfully (yes, respectfully) disagree with your assertion that we should limit these weapons to the home only because I don't see that law preventing someone from committing a crime like this. I mean, they're already committing murder, why would they care about a lesser penalty? If a law doesn't serve a purpose I don't think it should be on the books.
Good point. Guns outside the home should be outlawed as a menace to others. There is a parallel between second hand smoke and being a gun carry "user" outside the home--interference with the right to life of others. I agree guns should be allowed in the home to retain the right to kill your family and friends by accident or in a fit of passion, as well as the right for your children to do the same.
Gabriel,
I am not quite sure that your logic flows. The anti-freedom crowd generally advocates simply for the complete ban on all firearms (or at least that is their ultimate goal). Which at least kind of, possibly makes sense if it was truly possible to get rid of every firearm in America and somehow magically prevent criminals from getting one. Which any reasonable person would agree is simply impossible, just look at any other "gun free" country.
It seems as though you believe that if the carry of firearms was outlawed then this tragedy would not have happened. Unfortunately that is simply not true. Criminals by nature break the law and as such a law banning the carry of firearms outside the home would simply be ignored by someone bent on committing
such an act.
You state in your first paragraph correctly the purpose of the right to bear arms but leave out the personal protection from anyone that would do one harm, including the criminal that committed this act. As such if one could not carry their firearm outside the house then one could not provide for their personal
protection.
As far as to which firearms should and should not be allowed do you really feel that the government that the firearms are meant to protect against the abuse of should really have a say in which weapons one should have? It seems like that would be letting the wolf guard the hen house as they say.
Eitherway I am not sure that the argument you presented is founded on sound logic. I hope this will help to clarify the issues.
The 2nd ammendment says the right to bear arms. It doesn't say which arms. Take all the guns away from the aholes, which could be done. Just make any gun but a muzzle loader illegal. Probably more what the founding fathers envisioned. Guns don't kill people. Americans do.
The right to bear arms was meant to balance the right to free speech. Note the symmetry of the 1st and 2nd amendment, the pen and the sword so to speak. But now in the 21st century, how do you balance free speech with money fueled propaganda, or a well armed militia with crazed assassins? I don't think the founding fathers foresaw the power of Madison Avenue and the internet to shape public opinion or automatic and semi-automatic weapons being used to terrorize Christmas shoppers much less the gun culture that threatens domestic tranquility. How would they frame the 1st and 2nd amendment in today's America?
At the time the second amendment was passed, all private citizens had access to was single shot muskets, which had just won the War of Independence, and there was a big frontier that required being armed and the very real need of having a militia well armed -to supplement the army- in case the British attempted to come back (as they could have done in 1812). The military had pretty much the same type of weapons. They were self limited and there was no reason to control them, and large portions of the population lived in the wilderness (there werefew large cities) and law enforcement was in its infancy.
Modern technology has far outstripped the capacities of weapons at that time, and all reason indicates that some limits should be implemented. No need to take guns away, just make so it is harder to kill dozens of people (a dozen for each reload is more than enough).
As for having guns as deterrents, just look at countries that have banned most private gun ownership, like the UK (where not even most police officers carry weapons). There is plenty of petty crime (more than before), but no one is being killed. Life is far more valuable than money.
Hi, Calm & Reason - I agree with you, and you expressed it very well. And to look at a "gun free" country, we only have to look at our next door neighbor to the south. There are no 2nd amendment rights in Mexico, yet the drug cartels there have taken over large areas of parts of northern Mexico, and the good, honest law-abiding Mexican citizens there are at the mercy of those cartels. Whole Mexican families have been taken hostage and adult members of innocent families have been forced under threat of death to themselves and their captive loved ones, to mule dope into the USA. The Federales can't protect families in areas they cannot reach. The suffering and death tally in Mexico behind the drug cartels is horrendous!
Oh yeah... so when the Zimmermann verdict comes back not guilty (despite the railroading attempt), and the inner city dwellers riot and start dragging people from their cars and bashing their brains in with bricks (a la the Rodney King riots), we'll just die defenseless, content with you Liberals' limits... yeah, that could happen... the first dozen or so had better be bulletproof....
And it would likely still be that way even if Mexican citizens were permitted to own firearms. Most of them couldn't afford weapons. Those that could wouldn't be as well armed as the cartels. Those that were as well armed as the cartels wouldn't have the same number of armed people as the cartels. It's a fantasy of the citizenry revolting against the crime bosses. Most citizens just want to live their life, not throw it away pretending to be policemen or soldiers.
UK land where no one is being killed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9551667/Police-should-be-routinely-armed-in-wake-of-latest-tragedy-say-campaigners.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189120/Heavily-armed-police-carrying-machine-guns-pistols-Tasers-swoop-quiet-street-hunt-eyed-murder-suspect.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9550274/Mark-Duggan-was-carrying-loaded-gun-when-police-killed-him.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4528145/Sun-investigation-into-the-secret-tide-of-guns-from-France.html
Pragmatic--the problem is so bad now, that if the Mexican citizens got 2nd amendment rights tomorrow, then yes, they would be up against a powerful well armed and trained army. But if 2nd amendment rights had been there from the beginning, it might very well be a different story.
ctviking: "The right to bear arms, as mentioned in the Constitution does not say The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for the limits.
Actually, it does mention a kind of "limit" (well a "qualifier) and that is "a well-regulated MILITIA":
So to which "well-regulated militia" did this shooter belong?
I still don't think so. The thing the cartels have is a nearly limitless supply of money. Having a well-armed populace wouldn't have stopped the flow of money to the cartels. They could still grow. Meanwhile you have a well-armed populace that still doesn't want to fight. They just want to live their lives. They aren't soldiers. A better equipped, better trained, better organized, better funded fighting force would still overrun them.
Well, Pragmatic, I have to admit that you could be right about that--at any rate, it is such a disaster for those people, and I'm not sure what the answer is for those suffering under the thumb of the cartels at this time. Pretty messy situation, that is for sure.
It is always a gun nut with nut with no prior record who commits these crimes. Time to outlaw these types of weapons. There is no need for anyone to have a gun capable of killing 60 people.
So you are saying there is a need to have a gun capable of killing one innocent person?
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but the Constitution MUST be respected. Amend the Constitution. But until then no legislature should be allowed to make a law that infringes on that right,
I am not saying that you can't own a weapon, just not one capable of killing so many people in one clip. I myself own weapons but do not have one that should only be in military hands. When are people going to wake up and not allow people to have more than one handgun and some hunting rifles?
He didn't kill 60 people
A tank is a form of "arms" and so is a grenade launcher. Neither of these can be legally owned by citizens. Does that violate the 2nd amendment?
If the weapon had not jammed he would have killed more. Lucky he did'nt have two.
All guns are capable in the right hands. So is a knife.
While I tend to be on the side of those who want to limit guns I have to admit that prohibition would do nothing. We already prohibit the mentally ill from having guns and they seem to still get them. We prohibit all kinds of illegal drugs and it does nothing. We have a ton of laws controlling legal drugs and it does nothing. We have laws controlling liquor and the underage still drink. These incidents say more about us than guns. Look at Canada a society that is the closest to us in so many ways. While they too have these tragedies it is nowhere as often as we do. Again the shooter was young. We have raised a generation of youth that are immersed in nonstop violence and raising themselves.
@crushed, if the gun jammed and because of that he couldn't kill anymore people, how did he manage to shoot himself?
How about a full-size dump truck ramming a crowd at speed? The lethal combinations are endless. Doctors kill 125,000 a year by botching surgeries or a diagnosis, auto crashes 26,000+, tobacco 40,000+, obesity 100,000+, blah, blah.
Great point ............you may have a cookie....
Point is...?
Either he didn't shoot himself or the shooting didn't stop because the rifle jammed. Can't have it both ways. Unless, of course, you think he would have cleared the jam just to shoot himself.
Thanks for the cookie, Scooter!
No prob enough, my lady makes a ton of em this time of year. and as i am an inspector by trade......
According to the story he stole it, which implies he had no other guns at all, hardly a "gun nut".
Depends on your definition of gun nut. Some people think it is anyone who owns one or more guns (which would include me), some people think it applies only to people who are inordinately fond of guns in general (which would exclude me). I personally tend to think it means people who are basically crazy and happen to have a gun in their hand (regardless of whether they are the legal owner of said gun). This definition also excludes me (but includes the shooter in this case). Then again, some people would argue that could change and I could subsequently become a gun nut even though at the present time I am not. And my ownership of firearms should be reevaluated on a regular basis so that in the case of a change in my mental state they can be removed from my possession because that would mean I could possibly go on a rampage. Not that I couldn't (as this shooter did) steal a gun at that point.
If you REALLY are advocating for "2nd amendment rights", then why disregard the 1st part of the amendment?--i.e., a WELL REGULATED MILITIA:
So to which "well-regulated militia" did this shooter belong?
If everyone in that shopping mall was carrying a AR 15 this would have never happened. Maybe the shooter was just "standing his ground" and therefore his actions were completely justified. Come on you NRA folks you need to stand up and defend this good ol boy. You ignorant rednecks. Have ya killed anything yet today?
Haven't killed anything in a while but I do shoot Olympic comp.
Ban grown up video gaming, American psychotic drugged up idiots dressing as ficticous characters or mimicking serial murders as Sgt Robert Bales, US Army child killer. Problem solved.
today?...nope got a deer with my truck the other day though...should we ban driving?....
ScooterTramp
you do realize we have laws restricting certain cars, speed limit, age, mental capacity, etc, right?
making a pro gun statement by using a highly restricted comparison, isnt valid.
MJM
ever drive down the road and see dead deer? how do you think they got there? I counted 10 between here and Iowa city on I-80 alone the other day, about 30 miles.....think they all committed suicide? the question was... and i qoute... "Have ya killed anything today"....not any people today... so YOUR post is the one with NO validity.
I am commenting on your question "should we ban driving?"
if you want to compare driving with guns, realize we have stricts driving laws
you are quick to judge me just for stating i dont think your comparison should be used. you dont know my position, i am merelyasking questions. dont assume.
@Mjin, you realize we actually do have strict laws restricting certain guns (special license required to purchase fully automatic), age (minors can't buy guns), etc. (felons can't buy guns, but can drive), right?
Not sure what you meant by 'mental capacity' since I don't know of any thing concerning that which pertains to ones ability to get a driver's license (unless a person is too incompetent to pass the test). If you mean 'mental health', there is a question on the form concerning that very thing and it is a felony if you lie about it.
yes enough, i do realize we have stricter laws on some guns. however, i am sick of people comparing drunk driving or hitting an animal/ banning cars as an example of how guns are merely tools. its not a wise comparison. it would make more of an impact on those anti.gun to see a post like yours stating the restrictions in place than wild comparisons that can be pulled apart easily.
and any of that has to do with Deer in the road? mostly at night? evidently you don't drive, around here its a fairly common occurrence. Be happy if it has never happened to you or anyone you know.
And once again you skirt the question which was
Not any People today
but anyway you all have a great day....i have better things to do...bye
scooter, if yoy want a strong comeback to those anti.gun, you should take note of "enough's" post.
when you say something like, i hit deer, so should we ban driving is weak. you might as well ask if we should ban pixie sticks to eliminate choking. if you are going to represent pro.gun, do it with intelligence and not wild comparisons. liberals can easily discredit that driving is not equal to shootings.
to answer you seem obsessed with, i live in oregon where i see deer in large groups daily, and have to hit one. in fact, i cant remeber the last time i saw a dead one on the road. maybe 2-3 years ago. so, no, i havent killed anything today.
correcting my errors, it should read
i have yet to hit one (a deer)
in fact, i only know one person who did hit one.
i apologize for other errors, blame my phone
America was born of revolution don't you remember way way back reading something about that? I do.
We have the right to bear arms for a VERY GOOD REASON.
It's the only reason we still hold elections and such the only reason we are a free society.
You think the Government just respects it's people and their rights without the threat of violence ha ha.
I would like the freedom to go to a movie, shop at Christmas, go to a college class or a high school class, etc., etc., and not be killed. How's that for an American right and freedom?
@ Kamaaina: So far, you are not dead from being mobile in a free society. But, you have not been on the Interstate highway today nor to a hospital for an opertation.
So do you?....of course, and i bet you dont spend hours agonising over it either...if you do seek help....or just cower in your basement.
It seems the comment went over your head. Everyday, such a in this tragedy, innocent victimes attempting to move about in a "free society" were unable to do so. It could well be you or a loved on next. Get it now?
Kamaaina: Good thing you don't live in Iraq trying to get to school or the market ( the US military occupation killed multiple tens of thousands of unarmed civilians over 8 years while Americans yawned ), or in South Chicago, IL. You made an unsubstantiated general statement about firearms. The facts about the obviously mentally ill Jason Roberts will emerge.
Sort of like how Jason Voorhees of the Friday the 13th movie series [almost] always wore a hockey mask too?
Gee, yet another one-man well-regulated militia necessarily ensuring the security of a free state...
One idiot in a country of 300 million. Get a grip. Doctors kill 125,000 a year in botched operations.
well well toastys back....cant say as i missed ya............
Scooter
maybe he just finished his jail sentence?... for CCW without a valid permit
jack....well the temporarily empty cell would explain takendas absence...got caught in his garden perhaps?
I am a gun owner and shoot target competition regularly. It's fun. I can say that I run into many gun owners that scare the hell out of me. There are many freaks.
In a free society packed with psychotropic drug users, you will find delusional freaks in every business and activity.
As Pete Seeger sang,
When will we ever learn?
As far as I can tell, we never will. When I glance through the comments on a variety of news stories here and elsewhere (and I'm beginning to wonder why I do when most of them are so angry and ingorant ...) I'm beginning to see the answer:
The level of vitriolic bile is identical when people start questioning A.) Guns, and B. Religion.
It would seem to me that the some gun owners view guns as their God and the thought of ANY kind of regulation is akin to the crazies who want to kill the Swedish cartoonist because he offended Allah. Their logic - "guns don't kill people," "I need it for protection," "If everyone had an AK-47 we'd all be safe,"...you've heard them all - is just as narrow minded as "My God is the TRUE God...and yours is a phony son of Satan."
None of the the above is true. But then, "When will be ever learn?"
</rant >
OK all you anti gun folks...simple solution. if you are so appalled by firearms go outside right now and place a "gun free zone" sign in your yard or on your door... criminals wouldn't dare mess with you right....isnt that the way it works?.....don't worry the cops have got your back....and besides that you get to proudly display your thoughts on the matter to your neighbors. ..or aren't you that sure of your viewpoint? the choice is very clear ..put up or shut up.
Standing up for your new heroes right to open fire in a shopping mall?
simple question...You put your sign up yet?......no?....then shuddup......
I bet you got a fathead poster of the killer on your wall already.
posters on the wall?......maybe in your moms basement, ...posters?...what are you 10? ..posters??....bawahahahahaha....got your sign up yet?
Scooter, he sounds, acts and writes like he is offspring of F.R., Bev or any of the other Chi-town clowns - childish with the name calling. Perhaps his real name is Richard Cranium?
Makes a person wonder if Feisty was cloned!
everybody is @!$%#ing stupid by saying oh no we should ban
guns because a guy walk in to a mall and kill people. wrong @!$%#ing answer
because no matter what you do there will always be guns. remember this country
was founded with guns, was fought over with guns and my god we will destroy are
self's with guns. at this point there is no reason to ban them because
everybody have one and do you want to be the person to knock on some once door
telling them you are here to take he's guns away. all I got to say is good luck
and see you hell because you wont live long enough to get to the second house
Your argument isn’t very applicable to the way the real system works. There are consequences to the law, people just choose to break them and sometimes they get caught and they feel the consequences, other times the criminal gets away scot free. I would think that better gun laws would be necessary to really prevent this from happening again. I realize that you and others probably see guns as a way of protection for yourself and those around you, but it seems like they need to make it harder for people to get guns, so that not just any one can have one.
Republicans think the problem isn't that this idiot had an AR-15... They believe that the problem is that everyone in the mall should have been carrying an AR-15. That way when the killer opened fire, everyone else could have opened fire too. If everyone had been shooting at anyone who was shooting, republicans think that would have made everyone safer. The problem isn't that there was one deranged gunman blasting away at everything he sees... The problem was that there were not enough gunmen blasting away at everything they see.
Some people will always find an excuse to murder others. Whether from mental illness or just because they are cold blooded calculating monsters who want to take a lot of people out before they kill themselves. There is no rhyme or reason that would make sense except in their own private universe. My deepest condolences to the victims.
On the other hand,dragging politics into this situation so one can bash one party or another is so silly and has nothing to do with this tragic event. All it does is show a person is pushing their personal political agenda at a time when innocent people have been traumatized, devastated, wounded and killed. It all serves no other purpose then to trivialize what has happened by implying others would be just as bad at shooting as the killer himself had been. Since he fired 60 rounds. But only hit three people.
yep its a political thing alright......get a grip...or a clue..... or as i stated before put up your sign.
He could have committed the same crime with a handgun. in fact, there are mass killers who have killed more than this guy with handguns.
two dead....hell he could have done that with a rock or a frozen fish....... handgus were NOT involved so your point is moot......put up a sign.
There have been- and are- unarmed politicians who just gave orders to others to murder thousands. Bush II, Hitler, Stalin, Rutherford B. Hayes, Atilla the Hun, Tojo, Pol Pot, etc...
The first thing I did when I woke up this morning and found out about this was to be sure my daughter, grand kids, and sister and brother in law were OK--my sis and her family live in Portland, my daughter in Eugene (I feared she may have driven to Portland to Christmas shop).
My thoughts and prayers to those injured and killed by this madman, also to those who had to witness this horrible act.
All it would have taken is one person that knew how to use a weapon and was carrying to stop this idiot. I have to laugh at anti-gun wimps. You want the police to take care of things like this, but not the average person. You want police to have guns and have more police, but not more citizens. You advocate a LARGER display of force to reduce the chances of someone trying to pull off a stunt like this idiot.
It's as if only police have the capability to defend other people.
Newsflash - my state adopted "Constitutional Carry" (concealed carry with no permit required) a few years ago and guess what? the number of violent crimes have been drastically reduced.
The only think these idiots are afraid of is being stopped. He could have just as easily used several handguns instead of one rifle. The fact that he only hit a couple people and fired 60 rounds says that he was an amateur and would have been an easy target for anyone with the balls to carry, be trained in firearms use, and willing to lay their own lives on the line for fellow citizens.
It's quite obvious that anti-gun people are nothing more than wimps. They would run for cover rather than be the person to actually stop an idiot like this from hurting other people. Pretty self-centered really - save yourself, rather than save other people... but, that's the typical liberal. Me, me, me, now, now now, to heck with everyone else. I want, I need....
Like I said... Republicans believe that the only problem is that everyone in the mall didn't open fire!
@charles, your scenario would work only if the person 'carrying' happened to be (right) behind the gunman. A rifle has a much longer reach, someone with a pistol would be dead before they got close enough to fire accurately if approaching from the front, amateur or not, someone approaching with a pistol drawn is going to get the focus of the shooter. Also, someone trained to carry would be more concerned with what was beyond their target than the nut in question, if a bullet goes through him and hits a child, what then? I'm licensed to carry and a pretty good shot but I'd have to be very sure that nobody else was in the line of fire before I'd attempt what you suggested. And I'd have to be packing a .45, my little mouse gun is useless unless at pretty close range.
News flash Charlie, "He killed himself". bet there were plenty of concealed carriers in that mall or had their gun under their car seat. Do any good?
Charlie, you and many like you posting sound like scared little bunny rabbits trying to act tough and convince yourselves you don't feel impotent to cope with day to day life--very transparent
Enough-2735007--you make a very good point! I go wild pig hunting with my hubby (he has bagged 2, but I haven't bagged any yet--no opportunity has arisen when I've been hunting with him--yet. BTW, wild pork is VERY lean and much healthier than domestically raised pork). Any way, I've been taught to be VERY careful--always look at what is beyond. I will only take a shot with a rifle if there is something solid--like a dirt hill or berm--in back of the pig.
In a mall situation, anywhere where there are people running around panicked, I would either dive for cover, or try to sneak up and tackle from behind, NOT use a firearm, whether I had one with me or not.
If you really want to get a republican mad at you... Tell him we need to try and prevent this kind of thing from happening. They might even get mad enough to shoot you.
or for more fun, quote facts to a lib, its fun to watch the blank stare settle into their eyes and the smoke come out of their ears as they try to appear to comprehend.....but stand back you don't want to be too close when their head explodes.
Facts like what, ScooterTramp, like the fact that the U.S. currently suffers from the highest murder rate in the developed world, despite other violent crimes being mostly in line with those of other first-world countries?
Thank goodness he had an AR that jammed - if he'd had an AK, he'd still be shooting.
I'm curious as to how (if the reason nobody else was injured is because the rifle jammed) he shot himself?
Republicans will oppose any effort to prevent mentally malfunctioning people from getting guns. They figure that if enough insane people have guns.... Then everyone will need guns to protect themselves from the crazy gun nuts. And once everyone has guns then no one will get killed. Because crazy people wouldn't open fire in a shopping mall if everyone had a gun. It isn't like they are crazy or anything.
Yep its all a plot....sad, a village somewhere is being deprived of their idiot.
I believe that there is a lot of false information going around about gun laws. No one wants to give up there guns, but yet we can all see the value of keeping clinically insane or mentally ill people away from guns. However, no one really knows for certain if keeping guns from everyone would keep guns out of the hands of people who wish to inflict harm on others. There are pros and cons to both sides, but I personally believe some kind of regulation needs to be incorporated into gun sales and stricter monitoring of who has them.
This is a tragedy, it truly is. That being said, I do own an AR-15 with many 30 round magazines and as I write this it is locked up in a safe right where I left it. Tragedies like this bring out the emotions in all people, the gut reaction is “ban them, ban them all”, however the fact remains, deranged people such as this will find a way to act on their rage, emotions, disillusions whatever you want to call it. If we look at it in a percentage perspective it’s quite evident that these types of crimes are the exception, not the norm. Do I think banning AR-15’s completely would have done anything to have prevented this from occurring? No way! What many people don’t understand is that AR-15 by design are not fully automatic weapons. Another thing that sticks out is that the assault weapons ban that was enacted in the 90’s did not ban the AR-15 platform, it simply banned high capacity magazines, certain combinational accessories such as collapsing stocks & a flash suppressor. You could have one but not the other, the point is the assault weapons ban did not do what it was advertised to the masses to do, in my opinion it was simply a political move to suffice certain lobbying groups. While the ban was enacted you could still walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 platform all day long.
I’m not a member of the NRA, nor do I believe in all they say and do. I for one would like to see stricter gun show laws put into place. While there are many dealers at gun shows that require FFL background check, there are still the mom & pops that are selling anything you want from their personal collection. That is what I don’t think is right, I also don’t care for many other things at gun shows, and personally will not buy anything from someone who is not FFL registered.
The problem is, it seems there were always warning signs that these people showed prior to the event happening. I know my wife is a teacher who sees kids at the middle school age that are screaming for help, but the system and society doesn’t want to acknowledge it for the fact that we’d be profiling.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but in my opinion banning firearms like these will do nothing to curtail violence. Our children are born into violence, taught through video games and the media that this is the new “ norm”.
Ok you anti gun folks...what about the nut job a couple weeks back who tried the same things at a mall at the food court with Molotov cocktails? want to ban beverage bottles...gas...or both?
We need to find out who put this gun in the hands of a mentally deranged moron and charge him with being an accessory to the crime.
Well, that would be the NRA for starters--then follow it down the chain.
Yep, the NRA delivered the AR right to his house and told him to go open up at the mall. Why, just yesterday, I had an NRA member solicit me and try to get me to go on a mass murdering spree...
@OICY: He stole the AR15 carbine from an acquaintance- read the whole article. Criminal psychos/ drug users/ abusers are a group of full-time law breakers. Duh.
The NRA has lobbied successfully to make gun ownership and carry as common as carrying a cell phone and now used almost as frequently on innocent victims.
And your statement about legal firearm ownership has what to do with 22-year old psychotic thief Jason Tyler Roberts of Portland, OR? Nothing.
HE STOLE THE GUN!!! Read the WHOLE article please.
We need a new law... If you put the gun in the hand of a criminal... You go to jail for the crime too!
Wait, wouldn't that mean Holder and Obama would have to go to jail for Fast-and-Furious? Gee, you better change that statement to "Unless you are a Democrat, if you put the gun in the hand of a criminal...."
When you flip out with your gun... Rather than shooting up a preschool playground like you people usually do... Go into an NRA membership office and shoot everyone in there. You know... Kind of like a gun nuts way of saying thank you for arming a deranged psycho killer like you!
Or perhaps go to a Walmart and only shoot people with SNAP cards..... that would reduce the deficit!!!
We need a law
the Lib mantra......
The only purpose of an automatic firing weapon is to kill as many and as quickly as possible. The only scenario for this type of killing should be war. There is no plausable reason for an average citizen to own such a weapon.
There is a big difference between an "automatic" and an AR-15. Automatic weapons are illegal unless one applies for a federal license through the ATF.
No reason for a citizen to own a semi-automatic either. They are just weapons of murder.
look the 2 amendment lets me own my gun and shoot them any way I want and I got the NRA to back me up
Just making up BS as you go, idiot? How about a bit more hysteria?? That's what you Libs are best at.... and yes, one person with a concealed carry permit could have stopped this guy...
@ Nadine & jeroc
You do realize, don't you, that all modern pistols (not revolvers) are semi-automatic. Semi-auto just means that the gun automatically loads the next round from the magazine into the chamber after the previous round has been fired.
Semi-auto handguns & rifles (including the AR-15) only fire 1 round each time the trigger is squeezed. No more, no less. Many modern hunting rifles are semi-auto too. Hunting rifles are also more powerful & accurate than an AR-15 is. They can do more damage at greater distances, depending on the caliber of the bullets they are chambered for.
So if you want to ban semi-auto guns then that means you also want to ban semi-auto hunting rifles & semi-auto handguns.
I'm tired of people throwing around terms about guns & saying ban this & ban that when you people don't even know what you are talking about.
Besides, banning certain guns won't change anything. Criminals or people who intend to become criminals by committing acts like this always find a way to get a weapon regardless of the law. That's why they are called criminals!
Technically even a revolver could be considered semi-automatic since the rotation of the cylinder puts the next round in position to fire.
Traci, I don't believe you've made a dime. You couldn't spell your way out of a wet paper bag. You've been reported, go away.
odb2, your "right" to shoot guns ends at my property line and my person. You have a responibility to everyone else which takes priority over you paying with guns.
Oh and Fed, Jacob Tyler Roberts was one person with a conceal carry permit and he killed innocent people. How do you know the guy next to you with a conceal carry permit won't do the same thing? I was nearly killed by one of your gun huggers by being in the path of the bullet fired by mistake. Who protects us when gun huggers are irresponsible?
Uh.. the weapon was stolen. He was not legally conceal/carrying it. BTW, it's quite difficult to conceal a full-length AR.