They'll never ban Hand guns/Guns in general so,

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and in doing so, they were there 1 minute after the 911 call and did what they were trained to do. As they mentioned, the cops cannot wait for a full blown out SWAT team to set up as the gunman continues to snuff people out. Good job guys....

"I want to say that we were … well-prepared for this incident because we had practice in active shooter techniques at the Clackamas Town Center this past year for this type of situation,"

A gunman wielding a stolen semi-automatic rifle and several fully loaded magazines opens fire inside a shopping mall teeming with as many as 10,000 people. Yet, only two people are killed and one wounded. Sheer luck, or were authorities and mall officials well prepared?

How sad is it that in America we now see this as a 'good' outcome?

"Only two people were killed"... I'll bet their families aren't thrilled with that statistic.

This incident occurred at a shopping mall. This is not acceptable!

We need to do much better! We need to find a way to stop this senseless violence before it starts.

OK KBToys, share your brilliant insights with us, so we will know how to stop these attacks BEFORE they start.

kaybeetoys

How sad is it that in America we now see this as a 'good' outcome?

"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." ---Voltaire

It's a good thing this idiot didn't know how to operate the rifle properly...

I have a friend who is a psychotherapist and although he can't give details, he says the type of people with serious issues that the government lets walk the streets is scary... When one of these, otherwise seemingly normal people, gets a hold of a firearm illegally, we have problems. It's too bad no one had a concealed carry permit to stop this guy in his tracks...it is really a miracle this wasn't much worse... Good evidence that the government can't protect you...only you can.

Call of Duty fanboy. I guess Square, Square, Triangle, Circle, Circle didn't clear his stoppage as he would have hoped...but, hey...it's the existence of guns, not our highly lucrative culture of violence.

Call of Duty fanboy. I guess Square, Square, Triangle, Circle, Circle didn't clear his stoppage as he would have hoped...but, hey...it's the existence of guns, not our highly lucrative culture of violence.

I believe the correct button sequence for clearing a jam is:

up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a, start

Johnnierock

I wonder how many Canucks & Limeys contaminate these posts with their slanted views. I would imagine their freedom is limited to editing and discretion of censorship under hate speech is to why they come here. These posts should require a country of origin attached to all comments so one could get an idea of how muddied up the water is.

Hey, way to let blind nationalism trump coherant thought. Yes, because the "Canucks" and "Limeys" can't possibly have anything useful to offer. Their countries are full of mass shootings too afterall, so what right do they have to lecture us...oh...wait.

I would imagine their freedom is limited to editing and discretion of censorship under hate speech is to why they come here.

Is that a sentence? What?

We used to have institutions for people who were judged to be threats to themselves or society. Perhaps we still do to a degree.

Not so long ago most of these insane asylums closed down and the people incarcerated were released to walk amongst us. No only do they walk amongst us, they find ways to reproduce and then pass on their illness to their progeny...not talking genetics here so much as emotional or mental illness. Our society could do better but we are so focused on being politically correct we would rather allow deranged individuals their freedom than lock them away.

"They're coming to take me away ha ha,

They're coming to take me away ha-ha, hee-hee, ho-ho, to the happy home where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away hahaaaaaaa!"

For those too young, the words above, or some semblance of them, were part of a popular song played on radio stations all across the country in the 50s and 60s. About the time it became more important to be politically correct than focus on reality, the song fell into disfavor. About this time we stopped calling garbage men, garbage men, genderless labels were crafted, there was even an attempt to re-label manhole covers as "personal access entry covers" GOOD GRIEF! Political correctness stymies problem solving, if we would focus on the message instead of how it is delivered we might find ways to deal with the insanity that is running rampant today. For a good example of insanity, just check out the doings in DC! Our elected representatives are role models for the clinically insane. They all ought to have honorary Doctorates in it!

BTW, I like the idea of having the country of origin disclosed. I think it would allow greater understanding of some of the points of view expressed. Of course, if we let them start disclosing country of origin, the next thing you know, they'll want to have us start including our real names, telephone numbers, addresses, and...well...someone could get hurt or at least threatened!

For once sighber, I finally, totally agree with you.

@ Matt K

Individuals opinions of what is "coherant thought" isn't the operative power in America...the U.S. Constitution is.

JohnnieRock is just pointing out the absurdity of an outsider questioning how America runs things i.e. follows the ideals of that Constitution. It simply becomes irrelevant next to the word of our laws.

How many Canadians have been raped and murderd in their homes because they couldnt have a firearm? Don't let blind nationalism trump coherent thought.

I'm glad we have people on this board who can spot violent individuals before they open fire for the first time and who know all about the best way to secure public areas. Clearly they're wasting their lives posting here when they could be out there making America safe for democracy.

To All,

For clarification.

I used Canada as an example, but they have gun rights, just very strict.

How many Canadians have been raped and murderd in their homes

They average around 200 a year. Canada exercises stricter gun use and storage rules. They license all gun owners. Up until recently, they made everyone register all weapons, but that was overturned. It will likely go back, because there has been an uproar since. The public liked those gun laws. And Gun crimes are on the rise since it changed. The right wing party that changed it, likely wont last the next election. either.

@ Freedom 4 Everyone

And Gun crimes are on the rise since it changed.

Not according to...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/04/homicides-statistics-canada-2011.html

"The rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 population has generally been declining since the mid-1970s and, in 2011, reached its lowest point in almost 50 years." The Canadian murder weapon of choice is now the blade.

Hmmm.

New tactics and training? WTF?

The facts show the guy's weapon jammed - this meant that everyone had up to a minute to find cover or get out of the line of fire - thats an eternity. That's the reason why there was not the level of serious injuries and fatalities.

Plus, the guy was piss poor shot.

the only question that I have is how did he manage to shoot himself in the head with an AR-15? did he saw off the barrel? Which would have certainly contributed to his lack of accuracy.

Look, its really really hard to shoot yourself in the head with a rifle. when I heard that the shooter was 'neutralized' my first thought was that there was an armed citizen in there who took the guy out - and they are trying to cover it up since it does not fit the gun control narrative of innocent unarmed people at the mercy of an armed looney. . . . I suppose if that did happen it would not have been able to be kept silent - but I still maintain its almost impossible to shoot yourself in the head with a rifle . ..

The facts also show that as more people legally own guns gun crimes drop. . . . thats a correlation - like CO2 and global warming - which reveals the fallacy of correlations.

Look, this has nothing to do with gun control - the weapon used was stolen. Even guns in safes can be stolen.

KBToys - ugh really? The suburban housewife, current or future, liberal whing about 'we need to stop these people' yet other liberals emptied the mental hospitals and now prevent all but the most obviously dangerous from being incarcerated. Tell us the criteria for finding people before they do this? Who does it, when is the screening? You are such a caring person I can tell. There, feel better now?

I wonder how many Foreigners contaminate these posts with their slanted views.

Cheers mate. As a 'foreigner' living in the US (and paying taxes) is it okay with you for me to have any views on anything?

Comanchedriver liberals didn't empty the mental hospitals I believe that Ronald Reagan did that when he stopped the public funding for those institutions and yes I totally agree with YOU that the gun jamming is what saved lives.....

Of course it was the jammed gun which minimized the death rate....guy just lost his cool when that happened,didn't know how to clear the jam, or feared the shoppers would jump him and he'd end up in prison for life, getting corn-holed and beaten.

I believe the correct button sequence for clearing a jam is:

up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a, start

These kids don't get that Nintendo/Contra reference, man. 30 guys, let's do this.

Hey, way to let blind nationalism trump coherant thought. Yes, because the "Canucks" and "Limeys" can't possibly have anything useful to offer. Their countries are full of mass shootings too afterall, so what right do they have to lecture us...oh...wait.

At what cost? Childproof society because a SMALL number (per capita) abuse the right? There are 200,000,000 guns in the USA, and 40-60 million people own those guns. Until this last year, which the FBI will have no official stats for until 2 years from now BTW, the crime trates, including violent crime and gun crime, had been falling for 30 years. An this year there was only a slight uptick (several years into a recession no less). The population growth and guns in circulation, not to mention legal permits to carry guns, over that 30 years has far outpaced the gun murder growth. So even though the total gun murders probably went up this year, we still have a declining rate overall in the last 3 decades. I'll overestimate and say we had 13,000 gun murders, and do a little math for you.

Let's say the 40-60 million gun owners are 50 million owners...right in the middle (the average estimate).

200 million guns / 50 million = 4 guns per owner on average.

200 million guns / 13,000 gun murders = 15,384.62 guns per murder (that's a lot of guns not killing people)

Percentage chance a gun in the USA will murder = .0065% (or 6.5 in every 1000 guns...that's 993.5 guns in every 1000 guns not murdering people)

50 million gun owners / 13,000 gun murders = 3,846.15 gun owners not murdering for every 1 gun murder (that's a lot of gun owners not murdering anyone)

Percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun = .026% (or 26 in every 1,000...that's 974 gun owners in every 1,000 not murdering anyone)

315,000,000 American people / 13,000 gun murders = 24,230.77 Americans per 1 gun murder victim

Percentage chance you as an American will be murdered by a gun = .0041% (that's 4.1 in every 1,000...or a tiny threat for the mathematically challenged. You have a better chance at dying of the flu - 33,000 flu deaths per year in the USA)

Permits to carry guns and total guns in circulation in the USA has never been higher (which is not the same as ownership rate)...and yet the threat is very, very low. Still think all those other people should give up their rights for a threat less than the flu? Please recall that almost 70% of gun murders are commited by criminals, not law abiding citizens. No gun ban or gun control logically affects them, as they already don't abide laws, and we aren't on an island where getting guns is hard when they are banned (it's easier in say England or Australia, because of geography, to ban guns).

Now let's compare to the Holy Grail of gun control advocates who vaue freedom so low as to want "to purchase temporary safety at the expense of liberty", as Ben Franklin put it (he said you will "get neither" when you do that, and I'll add "you deserve neither"). BTW, I'd point out Canada didn't outlaw guns at all in reality :

Canada's population 35.5 million / 126 gun murders = 281,746 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun as a Canadian = .0004% (4 in every 10,000)

Gun owners in Canada is 10.934 million / 126 gun murders = 86,777.78 gun owners per gun murder

Percentage chance a gun owner in Canada murders you with a gun = .0012% (1.2 in every 1,000)

Now let's look at England's gun ban paradise:

England's population 53 million / 39 gun murders = 1,358,974 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun in England = .0001% (or 1 in 10,000)

Gun owners in England 1.8 million / 39 gun murders = 46,153.85 gun owners per 1 murder by gun

Percentage chance a English gun owner murders you with a gun = .0022% (2.2 in every 1,000)

I'd point out gun CRIMES (not just murders) in England have soared upward 35% since the gun bans. Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, and it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise...there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

So England's gun bans may have lowered total murders, and even the rate of murders, but the violent crime rates are soaring. Guns are a game theory mathematical deterent to crime, especially violent crime, believe it or not.

So what can we get from all these stats?

Population matters, as does other factors besides guns themselves:

The whole story is told in the percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun - USA is .026%, Canada is .0012%, and England's is .0022%.

As you can see, Canada has a higher rate of ownership of guns and more total guns than England, and yet has a LOWER gun owner murder rate than England! That means it isn't guns that are the factor making England murder more. So why is Canada so low, while England is nearly double that? Why is the USA more than 10 times higher than England?

All of this is adjusted for population and total guns in society...so what is the factor making us so much more prone to murder (even if it is a tiny threat overall to life) here in the USA?

THE DRUG WAR.

In England they have a drug war, but they do not focus on possession. Meanwhile we lock up nonviolent criminals at the almost the exact same rate as violent ones in America. Canada has legal marijuana in some areas, and has for years, and takes a very relaxed attitude toward drug use in general (although they have laws which are largely unenforced).

Just like during the Prohibition of alcohol, murder rates have soared under the Drug War. So has our incarcertations and incarcertation rates...we now lock up more people in total than any other country in the world (yes, even the vastly more populated China and India)! That's total and per capita! "Land of the Free"? Think again. "Land of the prisoner" is more accurate. We arrested more than 800,000 people last year for just marijuana! 86% of those arrests were for small amounts; simple possession misdemeanor charges. It's not only tyrannical, it's a waste of resources which fuels a black market run by criminals, and takes resources away from fighting actual violent crime like theft, property damage, assault, rape, child abuse, and murder.

This War on Drugs (and personal adult freedom) has given us the street gang phenomenon on the scales we see today. Chicago alone has dozens of separate drug gangs. They also have a high murder rate to go along with super-strict gun control in comparison to other cities...because guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is.

In Honduras where gun murders are most common and horribly frequent, they have gun rights...but they also have a country which is a main thoroughfaire for the illegal drug trade. By comparison, Uruguay has almost the same gun ownership rates as the USA and the same gun rights as well, yet they have a lower gun murder rate because they have no war on drugs. In fact, their govt is seriously considering selling marijuana to its citizens to get the drug trade completely above-board!

If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half, from 6 per 100,000 to 10 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

So I implore you...look at the stats rationally and logically. Think of why guns don't seem to be the direct cause of gun murders largely, when population, gun ownership, and chances of being killed are accounted for. Why does it appear that drug laws are the driving factor? You should be able, if you are truly open-minded, to come to the following conclusions:

1. Guns are not a major relative threat to life even now in the USA. They kill about 1/3 as many people annually as the simple flu virus. You'd need to be almost 3 times more afraid of the flu than guns, if you were being rational.

2. Even though gun murder is low threat to life, it is still WAY too high when compared with most other countries, apples to apples.

3. The Drug War is in fact the cause of our widespread gun violence...not guns themselves.

Although this mall shooting and some other recent mass shottings are not necessarily drug related, the major bulk of all gun murders are (somewhere between 60-70%). Freedom comes with risks...you cannot get perfect safety, or the very govt you want safety from will become the new threat to you. Some murders will occur, but that is the price of everyone else's (the VAST majority's) freedoms being respected. Gun bans and gun control has had little effect...the most serious factor is the Drug War.

I feel for the families of victims. I myself have carried several caskets of friends who were shot to death. But i lived in drug infested neighbrohood, and although not every dead friend was in the drug trade, even the innocent ones were shot as innocent bystanders in drug turf altercations between violent drug dealers (not all dtrug dealers are violent though, to be fair). The other 30-40% of gun murders in this country that are not drug related are dominated by domestic dipsutes...which no psychologist can guarantee wouldn't have ended in murder anyways had there been no gun present. The root cause of those crimes are violence against women (whether the man or woman was the murderer). That is another pervasive problem in our society. The very tiny minority of gun murders are mass shottings and just plain whackjobs who shoot someone in an argument.

And I'd point out one last thing. The FBI says that 750,000 crimes are foiled per year by guns. If only 2% of those cases are cases where a single life is saved (or 1% of them saves on average 2 lives, alternatively, et cetera), then no less than 15,000 lives are SAVED by guns a year, and that is more than the 13,000 overestimate I gave for lives taken by them via murder. That means at minimum, lowball estimate, guns are a NET GAIN of life, not a net loss. I'd also point out that's a very low estimate by me to make a point. The Clinton Administration did a study that said 2 million lives a year were saved by firearms...but I even think that's too high. I'd say tens of thousands to a hundred thousand may be a fairer estimate (an amalgam of all the studies I've seen and read). But regardless, guns save more lives then they take, and that's what is important to my point here.

I know some people's minds will never change, and I can already hear the ad hominems coming my way. But facts are facts, and they need to be analyzed rationally and logically, not based on particular ideological beliefs, partisan talking points, or based on emotions.

I did all the above math myself in about an hour while using Bing search engine and the stats come from the CDC, DOJ, FBI, and various international sources. I am not a member or supporter of the NRA (I dislike their racist history as a person of color), but I do support gun rights. Please keep your ad hominems, argumentum ad populums, and insults to yourselves. THINK about what I'm telling you here.

Try again, queenie. Liberals emptied the mental hospitals during the great woodstock revolution of the late 1960s....they demanded freedom for the inmates from their "inhumane" incarceration. Stop making stuff up!

Cliffs for the lazy: Drug War bad, guns good.

900 Americans are kiiled every month by guns... 3 times as many are wounded by guns...it is,as if FOUR PASSENGER JETS were to crash and burn EVERY MONTH...every month....the FAA would shut down the airports for years, and the government would hold hearings for years, which would be OK, because every sane person would turn to trains for safe travel.

"900 Americans are kiiled every month by guns... 3 times as many are wounded by guns...it is,as if FOUR PASSENGER JETS were to crash and burn EVERY MONTH...every month....the FAA would shut down the airports for years, and the government would hold hearings for years, which would be OK, because every sane person would turn to trains for safe travel." - by liam-1161783

Gun deaths total are irrelevant. Suicide is not preventable for brigde-jumpers and people who fire a bullet into their heads, which is 50% of gun deaths. No psychologist will say banning guns will stop the suicides guns facilitate, because they aren't cries for attention, they are serious attempts.

The other half are 13,000 annual MURDERS, a thousand or so accidents (pools kill more people by accident, as do bicycles), and about 2600 legal self defenses (justifiable homocides).

All that is relevant are murders.

And the flu kills 33,000 Anericans annually, compared to 13,000 gun murders.

Apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Spend some time on the DOJ, CDC, and FBI websites doing an OBJECTIVE analysis. How many justifiable shootings don't end in death (since you wanted to bring up injuries along with deaths)?

Queenie - you voted for:

Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and the Obamster, Right? Because you are completely ignorant of history . . .

The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 [Kennedy if you know your history] was passed to de-institutionalize the mentally ill from warehouse mental institutions into the community through half-way houses and local mental health faciities to improve the quality of life of the mentally ill.

It was NEVER funded properly and is the first thing to be cut in most Medicaid budgets. Democrats who control most state legislatures have refused to fund the CMHA . . .this is why we have homeless on the streets and the mentally ill not receiving care. The vast majority of the seriously mentally ill are on public assistance since they cannot hold jobs - have substance abuse problems - and cannot live by themselves.

Reagan had very little to do with it . . . other than acting like every President before and after and doing nothing about it of substance at the government level . . . but since you hate Reagan and the conservatives so much, why let the facts get in the way of a good belief system?

Conservatives, however, are to blame for the Drug War going on this long (although they didn't start it alone, that's for sure), which is the major cause of gun murder (not the guns themselves).

Plenty of blame to go around on both sides, Comanchedriver.

JohnBrowning:

Call of Duty fanboy. I guess Square, Square, Triangle, Circle, Circle didn't clear his stoppage as he would have hoped...but, hey...it's the existence of guns, not our highly lucrative culture of violence.

I'm a Call of Duty fangirl (well, I like Battlefield better, but I've played every COD game that's come out), and my murder count is 0.

And like Spider noted, during the late 1960's and early 1970's the ACLU litigated heavily the issue of the involuntarily committed mentally ill which resulted in the rules we have today where someone needs to be an imminent danger to themselves or to others and not understand the consequences of their actions to be involuntarily committed to a psych facility as well as receive a hearing on their involuntary incarceration within 72 hours. Mental health professionals may not have enough of time to determine the nature of a psychosis and be able to but a DSM-IV code onto it in the 48 effective hours they have to determine the illness, much less provide evidence of such a mental illness. Meaning, as I said, only the most dangerous and generally most clueless individuals remain incarcerated while the wily and more dangerous are allowed out . . .

I agree 100% on the utter waste of time on the drug war - too much moralizing out there. Personally, you find someone overdosed don't waste time and resources reviving them - the funeral will cost less than the decades of drug counseling, incarceration and treatment . . .

Comanchedriver

. . . The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 [Kennedy if you know your history]...

Damn! There is actually someone else that knew this or took the time to look it up rather than buying into the smear Regan campaign. Good one.

KBToys - ugh really? The suburban housewife, current or future, liberal whing about 'we need to stop these people' yet other liberals emptied the mental hospitals and now prevent all but the most obviously dangerous from being incarcerated. Tell us the criteria for finding people before they do this? Who does it, when is the screening? You are such a caring person I can tell. There, feel better now?

The shooter has been identified as Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22. Police say Roberts did not have a criminal history, but that he stole the AR-15 rifle that he used in the shooting. Roberts killed himself at the mall.

A female friend said of him,“The person I knew would have never ever done anything like done this. Not in a million years,” she said. “He was just too sweet. Never mean to anybody.”

The point is that most of these shooting incidents are perpetrated by someone with no criminal history and who was not seen as dangerous. Your argument about 'liberals releasing dangerous people from mental hospitals' is irrelevant. How many of these incidents have involved someone who was released from a mental hospital?

We do not incarcerate people because they seem dangerous.

If he hadn't gotten hold of an assault weapon, how dangerous would he have been?

FYI, I am not a suburban housewife.

There, feel worse now?

@kaybeetoys

That's quite a long winded dodge. How about answering the actual question- "Tell us the criteria for finding people before they do this?"

That was your initial point, "We need to find a way to stop this senseless violence before it starts."

So were you going to offer any solutions or just stick to broad statements lacking any substance??

ProIndividual,

Sorry, I couldn't read your entire post (#1.21). I only get an hour lunch. :-)

You self-important gun-rights jerks: How about YOU find a solution? You're half the problem!

I don't own a friggin gun so I wouldn't be losing anything if the restrictions were tightened. I don't need a gun. I can defend myself without one, thank you. As I've said before, I'd rather be shot like a dog, right here, right now, than to have to live in a country where everyone goes around armed to the teeth, looking over his shoulder to see if the other guy is going to draw first. That's just an insane way to live.

Obviously we cannot read the minds of the passive-aggressive violent types who decide to open fire in a mall or a movie theater.

The solution is staring you in the face but you do not want to look. Too afraid someone might take away your precious little semi-automatic?

Here's a clue: courage isn't something you hold in the palm of your hand.

I am not a gun-rights jerk . . .I simply support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted in 2008 and 2010 by the United States Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court who found the right to abortion tucked away in a hidden space where no one knew it existed . . . so if you support Abortion, you support the Second Amendment too . . . which at least has actual words in it.

There is a solution - allow open carry in the US. If there had been an armed citizen in the movie theater in Aurora, or an armed citizen in the Mall in Portland, or an armed teacher at Columbine, then people would not have been cowering with their head in their laps smelling their own urine and feces in their fear . . . but folks like you refuse to let us. There is NO street crime in Israel - everyone is armed. Since we don't have suicide bombers here, I think we'd all be alot safer if trained people could carry weapons in public without the hassle from the police and all the people who fear guns.

I am safer in my home with dog as my alarm and my 12 gauge under my bed than I am with a phone in my hand hiding in the closet waiting for the cops to get here. Do you disagree? That solution is staring me [and you] in the face. If you take my gun away so you can feel safe, then I become just a svulnerable as you. Your solution to an armed intruder is your telephone - good luck with that.

How about YOU find a solution?

....The solution is staring you in the face but you do not want to look.

Epic.

@ Pro and Commanche

Drunk driving related deaths reach around 13,000 Americans a year.

There are 13,000 annual murders (according to Pro).

For $#its and giggles lets just say half (6500) of those are Drug War related murders.

If we end the Drug War and legalize will we end up with the possibility of adding 13,000 high while driving related deaths per year.

I'm not so sure legalization would lower the death toll. On top of the fact that those who enterprise in illegal activitys, and then have high profit margins taken away, arent going to simply going to get jobs and settle down. It's going to simply shift to another taboo, illegal activity which will yeild potentially the same amount of murder rates you replaced.

6500 previous drug related deaths stay but switch to other activity, 13,000 DWH (Driving while High) related deaths added.

Food for thought.

kaybeetoys:

You self-important gun-rights jerks: How about YOU find a solution? You're half the problem!

I don't own a friggin gun so I wouldn't be losing anything if the restrictions were tightened. I don't need a gun. I can defend myself without one, thank you.

I don't own a gun either, so I wouldn't be losing anything if the restrictions were tightened either, but I view this completely opposite of how you do. It's great that you don't want to own a gun, nor do you feel you need it. I don't own a gun either, and in the area I live in, it doesn't feel necessary (I live VERY close to the local police and fire station). However, not everyone has access to these things. Some people live in higher crime areas, and others live very far from the local police. They're on their own to protect their lives and their property. And if someone is breaking down their door, waiting for the police is not an option.

Yes, I don't own a gun, and I don't feel like I need to. However, if something changes, I like knowing that I have the freedom to go purchase one lawfully to protect myself and my family if necessary.

The reason the forefathers put that in the Bill of Rights, was to protect the common citizens from being unable to protect themselves, whether from an overbearing government (like England at the time), or from criminals. We should have the right to protect ourselves.

The reason for the second amendment hasn't gone away. If you don't want to own guns or keep them in your house, you're more than welcome not to do it, just like I've made that choice as well. However, we shouldn't be able to take that right away from law abiding citizens who just want to look after their own.

kaybeetoys

You self-important gun-rights jerks: How about YOU find a solution? You're half the problem!

I don't see a problem so why would I look for a solution? YOU are the one crying out for one so why not take it to the next step? Or is bitching just your "thing"?

I don't own a friggin gun so I wouldn't be losing anything if the restrictions were tightened.

Most people do own guns and most people are just fine with the system we have in place. When the President wins the election with 51% of the vote, liberals, including yourself IIRC, declared he had a "mandate" to raise taxes on the rich. But when the majority of Americans want to keep their guns all of a sudden liberals don't give a crap about the majority any more. Funny how that works.

...than to have to live in a country where everyone goes around armed to the teeth, looking over his shoulder to see if the other guy is going to draw first. That's just an insane way to live.

I agree. Anyone who feels that way should absolutely seek professional help to deal with their insanity.

SabotAndHeat

If we end the Drug War and legalize will we end up with the possibility of adding 13,000 high while driving related deaths per year.

The fallacy in this logic is the assumption that legalization would dramatically increase the number of users. There is no evidence to support this theory. For example, I'll assume you do not use drugs, if they were to become legal will that suddenly change? Will you go out and buy some pot once it becomes legal? People are using these drugs now in great numbers so if they are disposed to do so while they are driving that is already happening. While it is reasonable to assume a slight increase there is no reason to believe that change would be even statistically noticeable.

Let me ask you this, Backcountry: after 20 children were murdered in their elementary school by an armed gunman, are you still willing to support the status quo?

ProIndividual,

Sorry, I couldn't read your entire post (#1.21). I only get an hour lunch. :-)

That's okay...you can come back and finish it. BTW, I researched and wrote it in less than an hour...

If we end the Drug War and legalize will we end up with the possibility of adding 13,000 high while driving related deaths per year.

That's make no logical sense. We know that the uptock in usage aftter the end of our alcohol Prohibition was slight, because like drugs no one has any problem getting those substances RIGHT NOW. You simply assumed a lartge uptock in deaths and usage that won't occur. We also know this based of countries that effectively or actually legalized drugs. Portugal and the Netherlands had a decrease in usage actually, while other countried had a slight uptictl. Eithetr way, no way will there be a doubling of "drunk" driving deaths if we end Prohition. That's just a nonsense talking point not based on rational thought or logic.

EDIT: "uptick" not "uptock"...typo

I'm not so sure legalization would lower the death toll.

Go look at the links I provided. The murder rate fell 40% the year Prohition ended....why? Because drug gangs no longer controlled alcohol and the disputes over alcohol. The same would be true of drugs today. Giving psychopaths control of a black market on a substance logically leads to more psychopaths handling disputesl ike psychopaths...by violence and killing.

You had 5 minutes to edit your post, so you didn't need to double post.

When every second counts, the police are minutes away.

So where were all of you NRA "Concealed Carry" hot shots? You were not there. You were not at Aurora. You were not at Gifford's rally. You just make a lot of useless noise.

Actually there were people concealed carrying at Gifford's rally. They just chose not to draw because of the crowd. Besides, this guy had body armor on. I don't know many cicvilians that could headshot somebody from a distance under stress.

So where were all of you NRA "Concealed Carry" hot shots? You were not there. You were not at Aurora. You were not at Gifford's rally. You just make a lot of useless noise.

So basically you're calling for more carry permits or for people with carry permits to actively patrol and respond to any shooting as the police do.

....talk about "useless noise"...

Nightwalker2890 said:

Actually there were people concealed carrying at Gifford's rally. They just chose not to draw because of the crowd. Besides, this guy had body armor on. I don't know many cicvilians that could headshot somebody from a distance under stress.

So in real situations, concealed carry won't protect anybody. Thank you for confirming that.

At each of these types of shootouts, there will be a crowd.

So...the mall or some other public place will be the next "OK Corral". I can hardly wait.

If the police were quick, and were "adapted" THEY would have shot him....this kid just panicked when his gun jammed, and he OFFED himself BEFORE the police could get to him !

So where were all of you NRA "Concealed Carry" hot shots? You were not there. You were not at Aurora. You were not at Gifford's rally. You just make a lot of useless noise.

It's illegal to carry in the mall because they have it posted that you can't. Why do you think he chose that as his target? They always choose no-gun zones to shoot up.

Many malls and theaters are "gun free zones" so you often won't get people carrying there because they cannot legally carry there. Conceal carry holders are also often liable for any bystanders they hit if they miss their target, so situations like the rally in Arizona the crowd is so densely packed while they could potentially take down the attacker, there is also a very good chance they'll hit the person next to the attacker as well

RacerBo
So where were all of you NRA "Concealed Carry" hot shots?

Why don't you do the math for us on likelihood of there being a CCW carrier in a crowd reported to be 10,000. Here's your figures 8 million CCWs out of a population of 314+ million.

According to state reporting to GAO, there were at least 8 million active permits to carry concealed handguns
in the United States as of December 31, 2011.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf

Current Population Clock
Population Clocks
U.S. 314,934,181

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

I thought all conceal carry holders had to take classes on proper usage, so why would they miss? But your telling me most would not shoot for fear of lawsuits. So in other words you might as well not even bother, and just let the carnage happen. So you'll talk the talk but not walk the walk?

@boom! reason

So in real situations, concealed carry won't protect anybody. Thank you for confirming that.

Actually, in a real situation concealed carry could easily protect YOURSELF. The idea that you'd be able to take down someone across a crowded mall plaza with a handgun, or that anyone would even try to, is only suggested by anti-gun idiots. Reality shows that the responsible people who have permits would likely only be in a position to safely use their firearm if they were confronted directly by the shooter.

In other words, I wouldn't be able to do anything to save you from being gunned down but when the guy gets to me he's going to have to work a little harder.

@marto2

I thought all conceal carry holders had to take classes on proper usage, so why would they miss?

I generally advise people to avoid discussions when they know absolutely nothing about the subject especially when they are so ignorant of the subject that they contradict themselves within the very first sentence they post.

After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a class on proper usage of a firearm for defense would advise AGAINST using your sidearm in a crowded mall in most situations.

Hey backasscountry, you're not man enough to take a shot? And by the way I am a gun owner with the balls to at least try instead of run and hide.

At least you have the right handle. And by the way I'm not a liberal you moron, I'm just not a pussy.

Wow, now your threatening me behind the anonymity of your keyboard, I was right you are a pussy...........

Backcountry164 said:

In other words, I wouldn't be able to do anything to save you from being gunned down but when the guy gets to me he's going to have to work a little harder.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that all or most people with concealed carry permits have the ability to remain calm under that sort of pressure.

@marto2

Hey backasscountry, you're not man enough to take a shot?

No, it's just that, unlike you, I'm not a @!$%#ing idiot who spouts off on the net right before asking mom to bring my lunch down to the basement. you see I'm actually an adult who has the ability to think rationally.

And btw, having a BB gun doesn't make you a "gun owner".

@boom! reason

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that all or most people with concealed carry permits have the ability to remain calm under that sort of pressure.

Mistaken belief? And you base this on what exactly? All of the wild west shootouts that take place anytime there is a gun crime? Why don't you provide some facts to back your claim lest it appear you pulled it right out of you ass to support your unfounded bias.

Hey backassountry, you can't even remain calm on the internet, so you expect us to believe you could remain calm in a gunfight. And by the way it's not a bb-gun you pea-brain and I have not lived in my mommy's basement for over 35 years. You are the one that sounds like a little boy.

marto2

Hey backassountry, you can't even remain calm on the internet, so you expect us to believe you could remain calm in a gunfight.

I'm perfectly calm, you are the one who starts spouting off like a 5 year old throwing a hissy fit anytime someone disagrees with you. Just look at your post history, what a riot! Every time someone disagrees with you you start calling them names right before lauching into a tantrum. LOL! Too funny!

And by the way it's not a bb-gun you pea-brain and I have not lived in my mommy's basement for over 35 years.

LOL! Good luck trying to convince anyone of that! But hey, at least I'll give you credit for admitting that you did even if you won't fess up to the fact that you still do.

You are the one that sounds like a little boy.

Yeah right! You starting every post with some juvenile attempt at an insult would refute that claim. "Backasscountry" ooooohh, how very mature of you, lol!

Okay Backcountry164, is that better crybaby. No, it's just that, unlike you, I'm not a @!$%#ing idiot. Yeah real rational and adult. You're even afraid of what your mommy would you think of you swearing. But to end this, you can't help it if you are a backass country boy....LOL Oh by the way, read your posts, you also call people names. Just not man enough to admit it.

Backcountry164 said:

Mistaken belief? And you base this on what exactly? All of the wild west shootouts that take place anytime there is a gun crime?

Actually, you're the one making the claim that people with a concealed carry permit would be of the right mind to protect themselves, so it is your duty to provide some facts, not my duty to counter your unsupported argument.

So, why don't you provide some facts to back your claim lest it appear you pulled it right out of you ass to support your unfounded bias. After all you're making the claim, not me.

What facts do you have that people who have a concealed weapon will be in the right state of mind to protect themselves? After all, the gun won't shoot itself.

Hey boom!reason, don't you know you can't reason with Backcountry164 & rightwingscrewball. They know everything and the rest of us are just Liberal idiots. Personally I would rather be know as a liberal. Definition of liberal from The American Heritage Dictionary is as reads Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. Whereas the definition of conservatism reads The disposition in politics or culture to maintain the existing order and to resist change or innovation. So you see they are still and always be stuck in the stone age, which is why I refer to them as Neanderthals. Keep fighting the good fight.

Responsible gun ownership means unless I know I can take a guy out 50 yards away I'm in a position of concealment until I know I can hit the shooter. . . the last thing I want is for a coroner to be taking one of my bullets out of someone. If I pull my weapon I intend to fire and if I intend to fire I intend to hit my target and if I intend to hit my target I intend to keep firing until that target is no longer a threat. The decision to pull the weapon means I need to be certain that I can get to the last step. Thats how responsible owners think. i'm not some thug carrying my gun like a purse . . .

boom! reason

Backcountry164 said:

In other words, I wouldn't be able to do anything to save you from being gunned down but when the guy gets to me he's going to have to work a little harder.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that all or most people with concealed carry permits have the ability to remain calm under that sort of pressure.

Concealed carry is for personal protection and the number one priority is to avoid confrontation at all costs, just like an unarmed individual.

If one cannot extract himself/herself from the situation and is directly threatened with deadly force, then, it is appropriate to act. If you have to think about the situation and what to do, you will end up in jail yourself. Thank the lawyers for that.

Being armed is a huge responsibility not to be taken lightly.

@marto2

You're even afraid of what your mommy would you think of you swearing.

LOL! The whole %$#@ thing is because YOU have your filter turned on not because I wasn't swearing. You can't even figure out an internet forum works and I'm supposed to believe you aren't a child?

@boom! reason

Actually, you're the one making the claim that people with a concealed carry permit would be of the right mind to protect themselves, so it is your duty to provide some facts,

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Ohio-CHL-holders-acting-in-self-defense

These are just a few examples from one state. Did you actually think I'd have trouble proving something that happens all the time?

Hey backcountry, you are finally right. I'm not some nerd sitting in my mommy's basement that knows everything about computers. I actually get out of the house and have a life. And by the way I usualy debate peolpe in person unlike you who hide behind your keyboard and make threats.

marto2

Hey backcountry, you are finally right. I'm not some nerd sitting in my mommy's basement that knows everything about computers. I actually get out of the house and have a life.

ROTFLMAO! Check out my screen name, what do you think it references??? 9 months out of 12 I spend more time outside than I do in and the other 3 months are pretty much 50/50. But still I manage to figure out the BASIC functions of an internet forum. Nerd? LOL! Yeah, like you have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how to click on a button that says "filter off".

And by the way I usualy debate peolpe in person unlike you who hide behind your keyboard and make threats.

Threats?? What the @!$%# are you yammering about now? Perhaps you're having a second conversation with the voices in your head and have started to muddle the two because I haven't said anything that could be remotely construed as a "threat". Or is that just your MO? Exaggerate what someone else said so you can feel better about yourself as you whine and cry about it?

Nice talking you to, I've enjoyed the laugh.

And despite the clearly improved tactics, security & police are always going to arrive too late, because any fool can point and shoot faster than law enforcement can apprehend, even if they are already present on the scene.

It is pretty clear that as a society, we are okay with random shootings. Because if we weren't, we would implement the obvious fix, that is: take all the guns away.

So i figure the only sane response in all of this is to just do the little Happy Dance whenever any poor innocent goes down. Because at some level, given that we've all signed up for the freely available holy and almighty sacred gun, it is what we all wanted, anyway.

If not, we should just get off our duffs and FIX THIS.

Skates, guns are here to stay unicorns and lolly pop trees and rainbows of cotton candy are in your fantasy world only. The cat's out of the bag, the Genie is out of the bottle and you should put the most dangerous idea in the world out of your head.

I am always curious when someone says "take all guns away." In what manner would such a task be performed? Would door to door firearm searches be appropriate? Should we just ask nicely to have everyone pile their guns in town square? Does taking all guns away include the shotguns that many hunters rely on to provide food for their families? I really hope one of the anti-gun advocates can answer this for me.

If we didn't have the kind of society where some people think that killing someone else is the solution to all their problems, we wouldn't have to take all the guns away......

Actually what they are truly advocating through sheer stupidity without even realizing it because they don't have enough rational sense to realize what they are really saying, is to disarm everyone EXCEPT the criminals and the looney toon element of society. You know, those two elements of society hat the gov refuses to deal with. Believe it or not, it's all part of the master plan to take this nation down.

we would implement the obvious fix, that is: take all the guns away.

What is obvious is that that is a useless idea. The obvious part of that idea is that criminals would love it.

HOCKEYMOM nailed it! It's the trash we walk amongst every day that is causing all this. Seriously, how many of you have a gun? I do.... how many of you guys do? OK, now, have you ever really thought about doing anything like this? Really, we all have screwy thoughts that pass by now and then, but really. How many of you guys would ever even dream of doing anything so horrific? That's right, because you're not nuts. People these days have no damn sense anymore. No respect, no concern, nothing good. That's the problem we need to answer. Why are they like this? Poor parenting, lazy parenting, TV, not enough exercise, too much sugar, saturated fats, who knows? But that's what we need to figure out.

Yeah midnghtridr that is what everyone that doesn't agree with you means. Take all the guns away so only criminals have guns. That is exactly what everyone means. Are you really that ignorant or do you just watch too much fixed news and believe everything they say?

Taking all the guns away means that only people who can take my life or freedom away will be armed. Not a place I want to live.

The solution is to allow open carry by properly trained citizens. We allow the barely trained to drive cars - which kill many more people than guns do. With open carry everyone can be confident that close by is a trained and armed citizen. THEN I'll feel safe.

Maybe he did kill himself before the police got there. I don't know the exact details. But most of the time these psychos don't kill themselves within one or two minutes of the first 911 call. Usually several minutes go by and many, many people are killed and people are left waiting during those minutes, that seem like they go on forever, without anybody there to make them feel safe and secure. So they should absolutely pat themselves on the back for getting there fast and making themselves a presence. Had they taken 10 minutes to arrive, we would certainly be hearing people complain about that, even though the guy killed himself 9 minutes sooner. I get really annoyed when people like you say things to try to negate something positive. Can't you just let people focus on something good without having to point out how you are too smart to be "fooled"?

All I'm saying is that the Cops are acting like they arrived there immediately, and shot him themselves. All they did was arrive there. The fact of the matter is, they're blowing this completely out of proportion, and it's frankly just silly. There were no hostages taken, there were no demands, there was no wild west-style showdown, and there's no need to be congratulating themselves for doing what they're paid to do. If anything, thank the Mall Security guys, since they were likely the ones there first.

Secondly, I don't see how anything about this story, save for his gun jamming, is anywhere near positive. There are 2 people dead, another in the hospital, a family just lost a son, a girlfriend lost a lover, everyone's asking why, yet the only one who could answer that is gone by his own hand. Rather than beating me over the head by trying to play Mr. Cool, you should be realizing that instead of focusing on the victims, they're trying to focus on themselves, taking advantage of tragedy.

Rather than beating me over the head by trying to play Mr. Cool, you should be realizing that instead of focusing on the victims, they're trying to focus on themselves, taking advantage of tragedy.

ThaMonkeh, I fail to see where anybody jumped on you. L Scott just pointed out some of the logical fallacies of your post.

If you don't want anybody to respond to what you say, why speak?

Amen..

All I'm saying is that the Cops are acting like they arrived there immediately, and shot him themselves. All they did was arrive there.

You're right. The cops made the fatal mistake of not asking the Jetsons if they could borrow their space car to get the scene sooner. And they should have taken Spock the Vulcan with them for guidance in using the most rational approach for handling the incident. How boneheaded of those police, eh?

*eyes roll*

*face palm*

*hands up in the air*

Monkeh is correct this is a poorly written article. The shooter kills self, police take credit.

Just shows the power of the police state that we seem to have created.

To ThaMonkeh: The paradigm shift that they are talking about in the article means that police are changing the way they respond to these types of incidents. Police around the country get regular training on Rapid Deployment, and Police Dispatchers get regular training on how to handle active shooter calls. The suspect in this case has nothing to do with this shift in how police departments train and handle these types of tragedies. Read the article a little more carefully before you go slamming the cops who DO risk their lives everyday for others. I say kudos to the first responders for going into a place where they know they might not come out.

ThaMonkeh is CORRECT. We are now relageted to "celebrating" the fact that "only" two people died. We are also permamently accepting of the outcomes of these shootings as a society by doing the types of "planning" that is described by the police and mall manager. As williexxxx comments, we have accepted the militarized police state which is now America rather than question the reason(s) to own semi automatic assault weapons. Before the barking begins, I own handguns, and have them properly registered, and was trained to use hunting rifles and shotguns by my Air Force step dad. Even he sees no need for semi automatic weapons in the name of "liberty" or hunting.!

We don't have many details in this article. It's just as likely the shooter saw the cops, knew the game was up, then shot himself. We don't know.

In any event, I commend the cops for getting there as fast as they did. If the shooter's gun hadn't jammed, he no doubt would have killed many more.

"The shooter kills self, police take credit. Just shows the power of the police state that we seem to have created."

Wrong, not WE, actually our gov has created it by refusing to punish people for their wrong doings. Someone crazy enough to be hell bent on doing things like this or just perpetrating random violence against others in general have no qualms about three hots and a cot along with free medical and dental service for two or three yrs or even life in prison for that matter. TAKE EM OUT BACK AND SHOOT EM IN THE FRIGGIN HEAD!!!!

When the heck did I say anything about not owning semi-automatics, much less stricter gun control? All I said was I think it's silly that the cops are acting like they were these great, epic heroes that were on call right at the moment that all the crap went down. Please don't twist my words to favor some wider spread disarming of the United States Citizens. If we did that, the only ones that would have a gun would be the Criminals... and no one wants that.

I'm also a very firm believer in capital punishment, especially when some psycho with guns walks into a crowded place and starts firing randomly, like that moron at the Batman movie. That guy should be dragged in front of a firing squad, but unfortunately, tax payers will be footing his bill while he awaits death row, if we even get that lucky, since they'll want to judge him insane and keep him alive, even though he shot, and killed, so many people. At least this guy was nice enough to off himself.

So what if the cops are changing the way they respond? How would that change what happened here? They didn't do jack and nothing they did or propose to do changed anything - it was all over before the first cop car arrived in the parking lot. How and when and what law enforcement is going to do has yet to be meaningfully tested . . . its gonna be a keystone kops scenario anyway - it always is.

ThaMonkeh is CORRECT. We are now relageted to "celebrating" the fact that "only" two people died.

Without use of a time machine, I'm left to wonder how the police could arrive at the site of a spree killing in time to prevent any deaths.

The low death count in this shooting is probably the result of several factors: the probable inexperience of the gunman, the fact that his gun jammed, and the early arrival of the police, which may have prompted him to turn the gun on himself.

All the article is about is the new response methods being used by the police, which emphasize immediate intervention, as opposed to awaiting a SWAT team, the U.S. army or the gunman running out of ammo.

A phyco with a gun is not a right wing nut. Please do not insult the phyco with a gun.

We live in a sad country!

No thanks to the moonbats

We have psychos, guns,

Moonbats are too stupid when it comes to addressing and correcting the sociopathic/psychopathic problem. But they find no difficulty when sprewing out anti-2nd amendment views.

and right-wing nuts everywhere.

You moonbat!

Put the juice down...slowly....slowly...slowly. i am absolutely amazed at the level of blindness you people are living in...seriously...you truly believe that this has something to do with gun ownership. Seriously? Karma, remember that, karma.

By blind I am referring to your ability to pick and choose what you stomp your feet about and usually it is backing the dems and blaming the rep on everything that may be bad..... where are you on the Fast and the furious? Dirtbag holder and the fact that an American got killed? Your CIC and lack of action that killed an Ambassador and 2 former Seals in Benghazi? this goes on and on...any yet you will try to blame the republicans, blame bush etc. Your CIC had 4 years to do something...anything and yet what did he do? He incurred more debt that any other president in that timeframe, is constantly deteriorating our rights as citizens and Americans, destroying our economy and then asks for 4 more years ..... and you all say "yes, lets give him 4 more years, it was the reps fault that he walked into a bad situation, now everything will be better"........

You must have a great job, are rich or live in your own fantasy world because us average citizens, of which are disabled veterans as well, are having a rough go at maintaining employment because of the economy, keeping a roof over our heads and food on our familys' table. But, keep pointing fingers and trying to blame others instead of the source. This is why you will never be anything more than someone that blames someone else for problems without trying to find a solution.

Sad. very sad

If a left-wing nut-job had a son...he would sound like bptr

6dogs

A phyco with a gun is not a right wing nut. Please do not insult the phyco with a gun.

Or the phyco (Is that a lisping psycho?) with a keyboard.

Lets see if I have this correct. Young guy lives in Oregon, steals a gun, shoots up a mall and that makes him a right wing nut? I don't think so. If you said guy BUYS gun and blows away neighbors I might agree.

More importantly, why would anybody believe that this has anything to do with politic? I don't believe this guy is a left wing radical anymore than I believe that he is a right wing nut job. If that is where your head is than you need to seek professional help because you are one step from going over the cliff.

Well said commonsense, I see you are one of the rare few who actually has and uses good old fashioned common sense.

GM Bill, I think I have been called a phyco before, I know I have been called a mudder!

Hey bptr,

I have a real hard time tolerating people like you. You sound like a real limp-wristed she-man that wants someone else to not only be responsible for you and your families safety and well-being (that is, if you're even the family type), but you also probably think that it's someone elses responsiblility to provide for you financially as well. I'm kind of lucky, where I live I don't run across to many of your types. To you, any red-blooded, 100% independent, freedom-loving, self-reliant man is somehow a right-wing nut. Well son, let me tell you something, better that than a panty-waste, metrosexual, loafer-light liberal like you! Do the rest us a favor and stay in the confines of the big cities where you belong. That way you're never too far away from all the various government agencies and other alphabet entities that you rely so much on for your survival.

By golly I guess you just told him!

Hey common sense or should I say lack of common sense. You piss and moan about 1 guy getting killed, then blame Obama for Lybia, where is the blame on Bush & Chaney for the death of 4000 plus American servicemen and untold Iraqis for the trumped up war they lied about?

Just an off the wall opinion with no possibility of proof.

you lost me with "entitlement mentality". how are these things connected? not challenging, just wondering how this works.

It's a stretch, but when someone believes they are not getting what is rightfully theirs..they could get frustrated enough to "go off"

Like if someone believes there is a war on christmas, or war on religion, they could get frustrated enough to "go off"?

... or if someone believes that FEMA is building concentration camps, or that the Administration is full of socialists, he could get frustrated enough to "go off?"

Like there's not plenty of rock solid evidence to prove that both of those examples are true?

yep. far too attenuated, or too buzzword-without-meaning, for me to grasp. sorry.

Um no, Midnightridr, there's no evidence at all for any of those silly beliefs.

Advice I've given before: Before you get yourself all riled up about something, you owe it to yourself to make sure that the thing you're getting all riled up about is actually true. The wingnut segment of the media has a long, proud history of dishing out fanciful speculation and empty slogans as if they bore any resemblance to reality.

That's why it always happens in THE most rabidly anti gun areas that can possibly be chosen.

In mall situations, I wonder if there is a standard policy that could universally be put into place across the US that if a shooter comes in, every store would automatically pull down the gates on their stores and lock it up until the all-clear is given.

Kinda turns the walk way into a fish barrel doesn't it? Nowhere for people to run or hide just a nice long corridor with a couple 100 or maybe a thousand people in it.

but in terms of malls in particular, I think the time has come for metal detectors with silent alarms to be installed in entryways and undercover security be put into place to do nothing other than monitor those alarms and track potential threats.

Why not just install them on our front doors or perhaps we can micro-chip all our citizens. We could be forced to register our finger prints at birth and give DNA from the womb. I don't mean to berate, but I have become concerned with how quickly people are willing to give up their rights or freedoms in a misguided attempt to make themselves safe.

A metal detector on all the doors at a mall? So every person with 50 cents in their pocket is going to be randomly stopped in searched... at a mall? It just doesn't seem feasible to me.

I was at Walmart the other day, and some regular, blue collar guy was open carrying a Glock in a holster on his hip shopping with his girlfriend/wife. Did ya really need to strap that on for a trip to Walmart? All I could think of was, this guy is fantasizing he's Dirty Harry. I can guarantee that any gun advocate that brags about "taking someone out" has never actually killed another human.

When the real police officers arrive at the mall, how does one know who's the armed shooter(s) and who's the armed citizen(s) when the fantasizing hero's vs. fantasizing crazies gun battle ensues?

I spent time in Iraq, so I know about dangerous places and what guns can do. However, when I go shopping here in America, I don't want to see ANY people with any guns at all.

This country is packed with "Dirty Harry" delusionals. Why open carry? To scare off everyone that might be a potential threat? Why not wear a bulls-eye tee shirt. Any concealed carry shooter you might encounter won't be coming at you from the front. Amateur anarchists are the first to fall.

While the right to open carry does exist, I think doing so is foolish. Anyone with bad intentions will target the armed person first. It is precisely why we have plain clothes police. There is the element of stealth and surprise. Concealed weapons offer the element of surprise...

That's why in most states, at least sensible ones, we have concealed carry. It doesn't unnecessarily alarm the squeamish element of society, and, at the same time, leaves the criminal element wondering.

I'd like to point out that your average, run of the mill comcealed carry permit holder is not specially trained in the use of the firearm that they carry. Most probably don't do any training except for the course to acquire and renew the permit.

That is the first sensible post I've seen

@Debisong1, I'm sure whoever he stole it from wasn't planning on that happening. Any firearm could be "rapid fire" as you use the term, save a black powder muzzle loader. It’s not the type of firearm involved, it’s that someone with serious mental defects committed an act of violence. Our system needs to be better enforced to ensure that a person with a mental illness cant gain access to firearms. though in this case where (from my understanding) the assailant showed no previous signs of illness, he would not have been stopped by that law.

I'm sure it's possible that a perfectly normal acting person could just snap at anytime and do something like this, but cmon what are the chances that someone involved in this persons life didn't know and realize that he was unstable? Even just a little bit?

debisong,

No one does that.

Look up "Sylvia Seacrest" and the Granite Run Mall in Media, Pa and get back to us...

wolfpac67,

Your point is...what?

Those people in the mall can consider themselves extremely lucky, due to that mentally and emotionally insecure clown lack of complete inexperience with firearms. It jammed, because this dumbass never even fired one in his life, he probably seen on Youtube. Cops had nothing to do with this incident not turning out any worst. In that one minute response time from the 911 call, he could of taking out a lot more people than he did. Very fortunate people who are alive and walked out of there.

Spot-1951183

Face it, America is going, going, going, gone.

I thought America was headed in the right direction? You know FORWARD & all that other horse $hit. So which is it?

I guess you just called him on his back and forth BS!

Not true in fact. I had a grandfather who was very law abiding to the point of becoming distressed over backing in a concrete barrier in a parking lot and getting a ticket for.

When he would drink a beer he would walk to the bar which was a few blocks away instead of driving like most other people would.

He was very concious about the law.

Then there is another grandpa who as far as I know has never broken a law in his life, not even when he went fishing. He would measure each fish and if it didn't meet the standards of being legal back in the water it went.

I am certain that there are millions of people who are law abiding citizens and just because you are not one of them does not mean that everyone else is like you.

"because you are not one of them does not mean that everyone else is like you."

LMFAO!!!!!!

The only way to control this the way you wish, is to put the TSA at every mall entrance..

If you want that, fine with me...I can deal with it once every 2 years. About the frequency I go to a mall.

Why blame the mall?

TedMichaelMorgan

So I guess the Mall should have a security gaurd at each entrance armed with pepper spray so they can keep someone with a semi auto rifle from entering the building ? Would you apply for that job?

Grandpa: "Why blame the mall" Because they have the $$$

Who you gonna blame? The police? They apparently did a fantastic job of responding and at the very least shut down the killer's options. The Mall or any of it's store owners? They apparently locked up as quickly as possible perhaps saving many people? The gun owner who had his gun and perhaps ammunition stolen? I'm pretty sure that he is presently feeling quite anxious and perhaps guilty about how he secured his hobby. How about the shooter? Was he playing out a fantasy then after he saw what he had done killed himself? How about the gun lobby that promotes these weapons and our gun culture? Are they open to civil legal action for their part in this tragedy?

I found out several decades ago after an accident that several product lines are so inherently and obviously dangerous that they don't require warning labels, as if that would have helped this time around. They are guns, automobiles, and swimming pools. Please note the warning label affixed to large pails, (joint compound containers) for example. On the side you will see the picture of a toddler tumbling into an empty container with a few inches of water. It is a warning sign to let adults know that this product though seemingly harmless is a killer. Though very useful, they should not be left as playthings unless supervised.

The same could be said for automobiles, how many lives could be saved it a recording played while locking the car, "Don't forget your kids!!!" But that won't happen because the automobile industry along with gun manufactures and swimming pool venders have lobbies that play down the inherent dangers. Note the latest ad campaign, Cadillac I believe, where the excitement of reckless driving on the worlds most dangerous highways is exalted. Come on Cadillac, you guys are better than that. Use your heads. The same can be said for gun owners and the gun lobby, Use your f-ing heads!!

I am a big fan of accepting personal responsibility, but I fail to see how this is anyone's fault except for the gun man. The police, mall owners, and Homeland Security had no way of knowing that this particular person would be entering the mall carrying a rifle, so how can they be blamed? Why not blame the person who needs to be blamed, he guy who did the shooting?

Your entire post is nuts. The person most responsible for this madness is the killer, who conveniently killed himself. The next most responsible person is the firearm owner, who failed to use suffcient means to prevent his weapon from being used by a nut. Perhaps the ammo should have been locked up or the weapon secured with a trigger lock...

There has to be a determining factor that drove him to the point of committing the crime that he did.

Guns have never killed people.

People kill people with guns and such people that kill other people with guns are always pushed to point to commit the crime.

Humans are born with a nerve that automatically one days untwists causing them to go on a shooting spree.

Hey dead head Ted, You are a idiot.

Troll or just stupid?

I don't think MSN is anti-gun or against the 2nd amendment, also being center of the road in politics doesn't mean you are against guns. I am against people having guns who shouldn't.

Grandpa-2986035

MSN leans so far Left , they may as well lie down. There is nothing middle of the road about MSN. I love to hear the Leftards talk about Fox News being far right but how ever far right they lean, MSN surpasses them to the left.

Kevin D. Hoke

Is that the same Fox News that told you Romsky was going to win the election? I bet you were shocked O won a little after 11PM Election night. Fox isn't far right their Far Nuts and they have a lot of peanuts in their shells listening to them.

I don't think there is any underlying message. This is an example of people seeing what they expect to see through their cognitive bias. Of course, my own cognitive bias may be seeing a lack of underlying message...

Well probably because they are the ones of with the guns committing crimes in most of the cases.

Actually, its because most of those are gang members and drug dealers shooting each other. Sorry, but a dirtbag shooting another dirtbag doesn't quite grab the nations attention.

Race has nothing to do with it. I view all criminals equally as scum.

There are approximately 83 gun-related deaths nationwide every day. Other than local news, there isn't a way (or desire) to broadcast every one of them nationwide. In a heavily-armed nation of 310 million people, violence is going to happen every day.

With 34,000 Americans killed by guns every year, how can every death be a news story? Maybe this would be an appropriate time, however, to begin a conversation about WHY there are so many people killing other people with guns.

Theres that number again. Why is it that people misrepresent numbers to try to prove their case? 34,000 would have to include the 18,000 suicides to be anywhere close to accurate. It also includes those people who killed a criminal in self-defense.

There about 12,000-15,000 actual homocides using a gun each year, not 34,000.

Do you believe that those 18,000 people who want to end their own lives wouldn't have found another way?

Of that 12K-15K, you have about 2-3K gang related homocides, another 1K-2K homocides are drug related, another 3-6k happen during robberies.

Perhaps the conversation should be why do so many people in America have a complete disregard for other people and lack of respect for human life?

What do you expect, gas prices are outrageous and when you think that they are dropping for good they get jacked right up to extreme levels again.

If anything the lower and raising of gas prices can be attributed to the deaths and the actions of the shooter that shot the victims.

Sounds like a good old Dick Cheney Waterboarding Session.

You are jumping to far too many conclusions with only anecdotal evidence. Prisons are full of minorities because non-minority offenders are diverted from incarceration. They are not prosecuted as often for similar crimes but tend to be offered alternatives. You cannot possibly think that any one group is more "criminal minded" than any other. It is your perception that determines outcomes. Where were you when this country decided that crack cocaine (a 'hood problem) was far more dangerous than powder cocaine (suburbs)? Blacks and Hispanics went to jail for long sentences for having small amounts of crack, Whites went to treatment programs for having far larger amounts of "blow". Don't take my word for it, look it up.

There are institutional biases that result in the perception that "those people" are responsible for all of the crime. The truth is somewhat less comforting if you aren't a minority....

Care to tell us why so many of these mass murderers tend to be White males???

"Where were you when this country decided that crack cocaine (a 'hood problem) was far more dangerous than powder cocaine (suburbs)? Blacks and Hispanics went to jail for long sentences for having small amounts of crack, Whites went to treatment programs for having far larger amounts of "blow". Don't take my word for it, look it up."

Maybe because the white suburban types don't arm themselves to the teeth with illegal weapons and ride around shooting up their nieborhoods and killing themselves along with any innocent people who just might be unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place?