No. Alzheimers makes you lose your memory, not your temper.

Just another nut making a bad name for guns. That's all I see.

wonder what he's drinking...doubt he surrenders...with out shots being taken...tequila...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1nwT4DV58A

What part of HE'S DEAD confuses you?

Live by the sword.............!

Alzheimer's patients can have pretty severe anger/temper issues..not saying its the reason for this just making sure the facts are out there..

He's the gone goose now. Wonder what set him off. Bad haircut you think.

wonder if he drank himself to death...

yeah...like those evil killer airplanes...that just crash into building...it's never a nut doing the deed...it's the evil man made object...

@ Ex Yahoo User

Guns give themselves a bad name.

Right, so then perhaps the weapons themselves should stand trial for gun related crimes.

Judge - "Sawed off shotgun, how do you plead?"

Sawed Off - "<silence>"

Judge - "Very well. Enter that into the record."

They don't call us "Those crazy Americans" for nothin'.

Isn't there a height requirement to become a NY State Trooper? It looks like Abbot and Costello!!!

Alzheimer's- I don't think so. From his long term behavior it sounds like he had antisocial personality disorder. In other words, another nut with a gun.

It is unfortunate that the police dog was also killed.

It is too easy for nuts to get guns.

Guns give themselves a bad name.

Right, so then perhaps the weapons themselves should stand trial for gun related crimes.

Judge - "Sawed off shotgun, how do you plead?"

You really think some 64-year-old could kill 4 people and injure several others without a gun?

Whether we own guns or not, most people didn't begin yesterday by burning down their own homes. The woman who worked in the bar where he drank every weekend also said he never spoke to anyone and always acted very tense and jittery, but was polite to staff in the bar. This man was obviously mentally ill and/or had a suicide wish. Unfortunately, this is just one more case of a hateful, mentally ill person having a gun and using it to make a loud splash on his way out. It worked... we all heard about him. Congratulations to another big time loser. He made the news and gets his name down in history! That's what he wanted to do... unfortunately for those he killed along with himself. It's nothing but "police assisted suicide" ... exactly what he was looking for. What a horrible man.

Prozac.

.

dman,

You really think some 64-year-old could kill 4 people and injure several others without a gun?

to answer that question....YES! there are many ways that he could have accomplished it. hell, he'd already started one fire, he could have made a bomb, he could have used a bow, a sword, a car, a bat, a chemical weapon, a knife, etc.etc.etc

Coral Taxi,

In 2004, wonder drug Ephedra was banned from use in diet pills because it proved to be dangerous to the public. I don't recall a mass outrage claiming that the "government" was trying to take our diet pills. It simply was not true. I don't recall the head of the AMA, Limbaugh, Beck and an entire television network doing their level best to rile up militant fat moms by making up lies.

No one, absolutely no one, is seriously trying to ban guns. Many of us believe that assault weapons are dangerous to the public because they have been used to kill multitudes of people in minutes. Be careful when speaking of banning guns. It places you in the center of a group of liars and their foolish lemming followers. It places you and them directly responsible for the next mass murder of school children by mowing them down with an assault rifle.

Life longer NYer here, can't beleive that in a state where we vote 70% Dumbocrat have had the strictest weapon laws on the books for years this can happen. Can any of you anti gun nuts out there tell me? I thought only Red State peeps do this, not in NY, we love the Dumbos they win by landslides every election. And the laws, no smoking in public in parks or school ground or any private building, no hand guns allowed in any city, no 16 oz sodas, no salt on your burger, the list is end less.

Bruce, I'm not a youngster either. [I still work, in a most critical type of public safety, too.] Your math sounds - (great?) - too idealistic and impractical.

But I would like to ask you Bruce, tough old man, how many times have you been shot, before?

By the way, my father is even older. Maybe he is even tougher. He still works as with convicts in a special counseling program that he designed himself, after he went back to college and got a double masters degree and a doctorate in counseling, after retiring from a full career as an engineer.

Frank,

so what are you "exposing" me to be again?

More proof of the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

(citizen?) Frank is exposing himself. He seems to be alerting us that he may just be the next Kurt Myers type. "wasneverhere" notice how he is all over the subject board, and, seems that he is becoming very unstable. Perhaps someone should find out really fast where he is located before he totally loses everything.

Citizen Frank:

By your own (ridiculous) definition, you are an INTERLOPER!

Early-onset Alzheimer's?

Looks like early-onset lead poisoning to me.

Good Morning Creek Dog!!

More proof of the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the cops killed a bad guy. But you know, the scoreboard reads :

Bad Guy: 7
Good Guys 1

Yes, 7. 5 dead, including the dog, and 2 wounded.

So. as usual, the bad guy loses, but only after doing a lot of damage.

Creeky, can you please pull your head out of your you-know-what?

I'm sending you a roll of paper towels.

Bruce, I agree one hundred percent with Biden about shotguns. Not everybody that would use a gun for self defense is proficient or comfortable with a pistol or rifle. For home protection, a shotgun is efficient and much easier to hit a target than a pistol if you're nervous. You can spend all day every day at a shooting range, and be a very good shot, but the first time you point it at another person, it's not the same thing. Even you Rambo wannabes don't really know until the need arises. You can strut around and crow about how bad you are, but many, as has happened in combat, have a hard time squeezing off that first shot.

Frank, your medication wore off... Tell your mommy to take you back to the pediatrician to get it refilled, you truly are psychotic.

John Bryant:

True, but it has been proven that the safest, most effective weapon to be used for home protection is a revolver (handgun). Shotguns are more likely taken away by the criminal than a handgun. Double action handguns have a higher chamber failure rate and revolvers are quicker for point and fire situations.

davey-526272

Good Morning Creek Dog!!

More proof of the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the cops killed a bad guy. But you know, the scoreboard reads :

Bad Guy: 7
Good Guys 1

Yes, 7. 5 dead, including the dog, and 2 wounded.

So. as usual, the bad guy loses, but only after doing a lot of damage.

Creeky, can you please pull your head out of your you-know-what?

I'm sending you a roll of paper towels.

davey,

What part of my post did you not understand?! You have a bad guy with a gun and it took a good guy with a gun to take him out. Did I say anything about how many were taken out on each side? No...

I just happen to be the only target within your cross-hairs on this vine today...

Save the $ for the paper towels. You'll need it for counseling dude...

@ Creek Dog, have you not noticed their accents when they (the trollers) type, they can't help themselves they're so obvious.

Not to mention "clueless" too...

Creek Dog!!! Good morning...

people just don't understand :) if the barbershop owner had a gun... it would be one dead. The bad guy with a gun.

TheMan,

the safest and most effective weapon to use for home protection is one that you are most familiar with. its the one that you've done the most training with and are most prepared to use in defense of yourself and your family. the firearm isn't what's going to protect you persay, its the training, its the familiarity with the weapon system, its the mindset to protect your family that is going to protect you. the firearm is just the tool that allows you to put all that into action. a firearm in the hands of someone that isn't used to handling and firing a weapon is more of a danger to themselves and their family

Frank,

slow your roll turbo. i think perhaps you need to lay off the caffeine and nicotine brother

John's comment #1.20 is spot on. If this deranged lunatic, or any other, are unable to own high capacity magazines and military style semi automatic rifles then the body counts of tragedies such as this will be much lower. The argument that "legislation will not stop gun violence" is true but legislation can make the difference between 4 people and 44 people being killed/maimed/injured.

Bruce's comment #1.32 is simply ludicrous. Comparing a two shot (regardless of killing/stopping power) shotgun to a military style semi automatic rifle with a 30 round clip by saying the ammo has the same number of projectiles is simply childish and, dare I say it, retarded.

Commonsense's comment #1.36 addresses something that has been happening since 2008. Partisan media outlets have been spewing vitriolic information that is designed to rile up the low information people. Doesn't matter the the information is an outright lie, an obfuscation of the truth, a half-truth or a total misinterpretation of FACTS as long as it gets the hoi polloi into a frenzy and, consequently, garners high ratings.

Wasneverhere:

I agree... just stating that a revolver is more efficient than a shotgun if you are new to weapons and looking for a home defense option. familiarity is the most important part... so I agree 100% with your post.

I think Frank is off his Meds keep the guns away from him please

TheMan @1.63 - great assumption. You don't know that. The barber was busy giving haircuts, not looking out for guys with shotguns to walk into his shop. I'm a trained safety officer and I can't guarantee the results you just predicted. My job is to stand or move around and watch for people like this and I have been in critical response situations, and I have never had perfect results, just satisfactory. (And, No, no one has ever been killed at any location that I have been assigned.)

"wasneverhere" right below you had a very good assessment of the picture.

PublicSpeech,

Great assumption yourself, how do you know the barber was busy giving haircuts? At the barber shop I go to there are large glass windows everywhere, if someone was walking in with a shotgun everyone would notice immediately. and some would take action.

“We saw a guy walking around the shop,” Dillon said of the killings she witnessed from a nearby sidewalk. “There were two shots fired. We watched him reload the gun. He was walking around. We watched him shoot the one guy, then he went into the shop and shot the other guy.”

Hmmmm...makes you wonder...what would have happened if someone <like myself> was nearby to witness this much, and carried a legal, permitted concealed weapon...and willing to intervine and stop some psycho from "slowing reloading and shooting 2 people". I will tell you now that I wouldn't be standing by watching a murder happen. I would be putting a .45cal hollow point into this guy. But hey, lets ban guns so we can have more people who standby on a sidewalk across the street and watch as a madman murders a bunch of people. Way to go libs!!!

The man, While you seem to know what you are talking about, unless a woman is a pretty decent shot, a pistol shot in many cases, while doing much damage, still allows the bad guy the ability to do much harm to the homeowner. A shotgun blast from close range will introduce the bad guy to the next life with no delay.

TheMan(?) I will respond one more time. If I had been there at that barber shop and trying to protect people, would you have been there too - trying to argue with me and prevent me from doing my job?

Perhaps you are of that most dangerous class of people to me and those I work for; and yes, I have to deal with people like that many times more often that the real bad guys, the nuts like Kurt Myers.

But, John Bryant, I and plenty of doctors have seen some tough guys who have survived even large caliber shotgun blasts!

PublicSpeech:

My whole point is... If a citizen of NY walking the streets had a concealed handgun. (NY has a May Issue policy) and saw this crime happening like witnesses said:

“We saw a guy walking around the shop,” Dillon said of the killings she witnessed from a nearby sidewalk. “There were two shots fired. We watched him reload the gun. He was walking around. We watched him shoot the one guy, then he went into the shop and shot the other guy.”

Then the outcome COULD have been different... Here it Texas (we have Shall Issue policy) it PROBABLY would have been different.

davey,

You're one hell of a creepy ass dude man. Not to mention looking gay with your posts.

This is all I need now, a freakin' gay dude trolling me. Go away man. Ewwww.....

Now that I think about it, your posts sound eerily familiar. I cannot remember your other avatar name, but you were trolling me in the past and even tried to contact me to go with you to dinner.

That's when this other chick came in and told you on her post... "No means NO, Just like a woman telling a man no". That's when you went away....

Oh boy, now I remember. Hmmmmm. What happened? Your boyfriend throw you out again?!. Ewwwww... Now I know what your also using those paper towels for... Ewwwwww "again!"

Dont go away mad.........just,...go,...away....

PublicSpeech:

you are becoming too defensive, I have not. No offense to you but you being a safety officer (trained of not) means nothing to me and my right to protect myself and family. Most safety officers do not even carry, so how would I know if you did? I carry and can protect myself.

Frank,

is it internet hour at the psychiatric hospital? and do you have a point in all of you inane and vapid ranting and ravings, other than i am some "foreign interloper"? please elaborate in complete sentences that make sense so others may understand you? perhaps a few less "HAHAHAs" might also be effective in making yourself seem less crazy

I have answered that question before on another newsvine article. I don't have to answer it now. Neither have I identified specifically what type of public safety I do; but it is of an important nature and I am there five days a week and every hour that I am assigned. I never need someone else doing my job for me (in public).

Neither do you know what type of training I have received, not what types of training I receive regularly on an ongoing basis.

@ Citizen (Nutjob) Frank Just what exactly are you exposing? That the rest of us hope like hell you don't have a gun if you run around mad like that all day! Your doing a great job and I'm glad all you have is a keyboard.

John Bryant:

Your point is very valid, however, and I didn't want to bring up women before, because I know some, including my sister, that have better aim with a pistol then I do, yes that pains me to say :) However, all experts will tell you the weakness of a shotgun is that it is bulky and especially in a close range situation the barrel makes it much easier to dislodge from the homeowner. That is why most experts at gun shows will recommend revolvers, especially for women because there is no safety and they are ready to fire right out of the holster.

Fair enough PublicSpeech:

But I am here by my family 7 days a week and so are bad people. I can take care of my own... but thank you for your work.

You're one hell of a creepy ass dude man. Not to mention looking gay with your posts.

Go away man. Ewwww.....

Dont go away mad.........just,...go,...away....

Ha!! I hit pay dirt. I busted you. Now, you are deflecting as hard as you can. Yes!!!!

Before I let your Overwhelming Personality take this thread off into The Land or Weirdness (for the record, I do not think that you or I are afflicted with same sex atttraction) let me just say that I responded to you when you Parroted the NRA Talking Point. You are an NRA Parrot.

Polly want a cracker??!!??

That's all.

I don't want to have dinner with you.

And,

I'm not going away.

You want me to go away?

You go away.

When you go away, you will not see me anymore. There ya go. No need to ask me to do something for you. You can do it all yourself.

OK?

Have a NICE day.

Oh, sorry, forgot to say, Good Morning Creek Dog!!

Creek dog:

I think I've told you this once before... The easiest way to get rid of crazy is to ignore it. If it follows you, run faster, if it catches you, CAP it :)

Copy that brotha.... This davey kid sure is a quack job though. LOL

My father was correct, they're out there man. You talk about cap it, I don't have to, there are people out there that'll do it for me, especially considering this mental kid is all out ant-gun etc... LMAO... I actually feel sorry for people like him.

Later!

Another point, many home invaders are hopped up on one kind or another of illegal drugs. I don't know what experience you have with that, but an individual high on PCP can be shot in the gut and not even notice it until he bleeds out. One hit by a blast of .00 buckshot ain't goin nowhere, with his feet on one side of the room and his head on the other.

PublicSpeech

I have answered that question before on another newsvine article. I don't have to answer it now. Neither have I identified specifically what type of public safety I do; but it is of an important nature and I am there five days a week and every hour that I am assigned. I never need someone else doing my job for me (in public).

You make a very good point, but what about the 2days a week or 16 hours a day that you are not there (forgive me for only assuming you have an 8 hr workday...it may be more)? And realistically, not many people or places are lucky enough to have a person like yourself standing by ready to take action if something like this were to happen. This story is a prime example of that. Would I get in your way? We may never know, but I sure as hell wouldn't stand by and watch a tragedy like this unfold, just as I know you wouldn't either. You may not know what the outcome may be, but I can tell you that doing nothing while people are being killed in your pressence only worsens the outcome in my eyes.

They sure do love to report on violence in New York and Chicago. Is that the only place violence happens? Maybe we should ban Chicago and New York.

Morning Creek, sorry bout your fan club president. I must admit he is one of your more eloquent fans.

Man Davey, you're creepin me out with those moronic, rambling posts. I thought you might have a crush on Creek Dog too......

@ Dman

You really think some 64-year-old could kill 4 people and injure several others without a gun?

Do you really think this gun could kill 4 people and injure several others without a 64-year-old deciding to murder?

I thought you might have a crush on Creek Dog too......

No need to bring sexuality into a discussion of gun violence. I am not here to find intimacy. There, I said it.

And, I agree with TheMan, better to ignore than to say something stupid, Creek Dog.

But, I did not say something stupid when I responded to Creaky's parroting of the NRA talking point. I pointed out that even in a situation where a Good Guy does stop a Bad Guy, the Bad Guy has already won, already accomplished his goals. So, a Pyrrhic victory?

lets see john you have a shotgun that measures 4-5 feet in length being used in a room that is 10x10 feet. you have a pistol that measures 4 inches being used in a room that measures 10x10. now let me ask you this, which would be easier to control? to keep it away from the criminal getting a hold of.

@ Davey

I pointed out that even in a situation where a Good Guy does stop a Bad Guy, the Bad Guy has already won, already accomplished his goals. So, a Pyrrhic victory?

Like the W.H. using drones to kill Americans terrorists in secret, before they are convicted of treason....the damage from terrorism has already been done to our Constitution.

Do you really think some gun could kill 4 people and injure several others without a person using it?

No one EVER said that a gun kills all by itself. A gun has NEVER been charged with murder. We ALL know this.

A gun is a tool. A tool to kill. The Right Tool for the Job.

@ Davey

No one EVER said that a gun kills all by itself.

Apparently Ex Yahoo User disagrees because he states..."Guns give themselves a bad name." I'm pretty sure you don't think he beileves these weapons are actually talking and calling themselves dirty names? (he might be though)

Guns are tools. They are the right tool. Killing is a necessity for survival sometimes. Simply believing you can karate kick your way out of trouble is foolish. Especially considering even having a firearm in a conflict really only raises your odds of survival...not guarantees it.

This WHOLE article Isn't REALLY about this deranged fossil. It is about how the EVIL EVIL EVIL rich and their DEMONIC corporations are trying to disArm ALL Americans so they can try to transform Working and Salaried Americans in shareCroppers in an Indentured Serfdom socio/economic entity with the EVIL EVIL Very Evil rich and their extensions. the corporations live in Unheardoff Luxury...Did ANYBODY get a Whiff of the armed forces stopping Tuition Assistance for these kids who trustingly signed up?? Did You Know that the oil campanies HAVE WE AMERICANS paying $4.50 p/G of gas and AND AND!!!!!! in Venezuela they pay the HUGE amount of 10CENTS Per Gallon for the same stuff. And "gov" andy Coma?? a lapdog for the Aristocrat class. What Did We Say???? The EVIL EVIL rich and their corporations are taking EVERYTHING;
AND "the sequester"??? what a fancy name for WE Working Anericans Paying back the money Stolen by this criminal class. The French Revolution dealth with this criminal class in 1790 With the Help Of THE MADAM.......or the wall street and corporate rich to take away citizens "guns"; Just LOOK how effective Coma's ban is.What Did We Say???? The EVIL EVIL rich and their corporations are taking EVERYTHING;
AND "the sequester"??? what a fancy name for WE Working Anericans Paying back the money Stolen by this criminal class. The French Revolution dealth with this "Aristocrat"l class in 1790 With the Help Of THE MADAM.......

Some positive aspects to the case: Now we won't have to hear about what a bad childhood he had, how it was "self defense", how an intruder set his house on fire and he tracked them down to the barber shop/car wash but accidentally shot the wrong people, how he didn't know the gun was loaded, how the psychiatrist says he is mentally ill but he forgot to take his medication, etc., etc.. And some O.J. type defense lawyer's wallet will be leaner.

@Creek Dog: Sorry the dog got shot and died. It's one of the sad parts of the story.

LOL....

Especially considering even having a firearm in a conflict really only raises your odds of survival

Really? And, you have data that shows a gun makes you safer?

I have a data point that says otherwise:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

LOL....

Sheesh

Eric1964:

100% correct! but I think John does have a valid point about the stopping power of a shotgun, especially against a PCP controlled criminal.

John Bryant: to answer your question, I have never seen anyone on PCP. but, do you remember the case recently of the women hiding out in a crawl space protecting her children from an intruder shooting him 5 times? Her life and the lives of precious lives of her were saved by that gun... it was a revolver and he was high on something.

@commonsense;

Be careful when speaking of banning guns. It places you in the center of a group of liars and their foolish lemming followers. It places you and them directly responsible for the next mass murder of school children by mowing them down with an assault rifle.

Number one I never shared my opinion on which side I am on in that post, just that it is a losing battle to try to ban guns, so you be careful when making assumptions. Per usual your statement makes no sense and you take things out of context. Mass murder was here before you and it will be here after you, regardless of the methods. One can not hold people accountable "directly" because of how they feel ,nor rightfully insult them by calling them "liars" and "foolish". You are using insults instead of common sense.

Your way just might make them defenseless to stand against these evils. I am not willing to let nutballs control how I live and what type of gun I wish to own just because they are nutballs.

Obama Administration mulling over possible banning of the State of New York.

Defense will be the best offense in most of these cases.

What is that statement based on? A bad guy with a gun has the advantage over an intended victim, even if the intended victim is armed.

Murder is quite common. Justifiable homicide is rare.

@ Davey

Really? And, you have data that shows a gun makes you safer?

I have a data point that says otherwise.

Now, you've moved into complete absurdity. You do realize that even in a criminal act using a weapon...the criminal is at least safer while using the firearm?

If the criminal is not benefiting from the safety and control of using a firearm....then why are we having this discussion?

They watched him reload. Think "I really shouldn't have voted for those socialist SOBs" crossed their minds?

We are having this discussion because there are various opinions about guns.

A person committing a crime with a gun has made a very bad decision (i.e. "I will rob that bank and I will use this gun"). And, yes, you will intimidate if you have a gun. People will be scared. But, and I think we can agree on this, it is VERY unsafe to use a gun to rob a bank. You will almost certainly end up dead or in jail (and lord knows what will happen to you in jail). The gun has not made the criminal safe at all. If the absence of a gun would have deterred the criminal from robbing the bank, then you could say that the gun put the criminal at great risk of harm.

But what I am asking you is, why do you think that a firearm in a conflict really only raises your odds of survival? What is the basis for you making that statement?

Is it just your opinion?

Or is there data that shows that, in a conflict, a gun will, in fact, increase your chance of survival?

Why is having a gun better than running away, from a survival point of view?

@Davey526;

Defense will be the best offense in most of these cases.

What is that statement based on?

Vigilance sir Vigilance. Being prepared.

<eternal vigilance is the price of freedom>

This is my message in my first post, get it now sir?

Vigilance sir Vigilance. Being prepared.

I'm vigilant. I'm prepared. I don't have a gun.

Problem here that I see is this: You want a gun. You think it makes you safe. I see no evidence for this, but we are all entitled to our fantasies.

But you also want guns, especially hand guns, to be easy for just about everyone else to also buy. I think it is clear that there are responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. The responsible gun owners may out number the irresponsible gun owners, but it doesn't take many irresponsible gun owners to cause death and mayhem, which shocks many people.

I don't think it should be easy for an irresponsible person to get a gun, especially a hand gun. Do you tolerate irresponsible gun owners?

davey-526272

davey, davey, davey..... Now, in this very case, the story that we are all commenting on, where a mad man walks around with no sense of urgency while reloading, and shooting people and there are witnesses watching all of this happen and obviously doing nothing. If I was close enough to witness this and come out alive and tell the whole story about how he "shot one guy..then shot the next guy"..then I would also be the guy saying "I then pulled out my gun and shot him before he could reload and continue his shooting spree." A lot of good the guy with the cell phone did huh? He called the police and they were sure to get there in time put up crime scene tape and take statements from witnesses.

Why is having a gun better than running away, from a survival point of view?

Well maybe some of us do think of other people's safety before our own and will not run away and allow others to die.

@davey;

O.k we willl try a different way. What I am saying is that in a free society being armed makes you much safer than being unarmed, if something should happen to go down right around you. Being in a free society puts us at risk from nutballs going off at anytime. Guns gained your freedom and they shall keep it.

@ PubicSpeach,

(citizen?) Frank is exposing himself. He seems to be alerting us that he may just be the next Kurt Myers type. "wasneverhere" notice how he is all over the subject board, and, seems that he is becoming very unstable. Perhaps someone should find out really fast where he is located before he totally loses everything.

What a riot, like your not all over the place trolling as I'm all over exposing it, enjoy the exposure, nice try at deflection, Ha Ha Ha, NOT! I noticed how you've finally rallied the troops too! Couldn't hang on your own could you, it was only a matter of time before they chimed in too.

@ wasneverhere,

Frank, is it internet hour at the psychiatric hospital? and do you have a point in all of you inane and vapid ranting and ravings, other than i am some "foreign interloper"? please elaborate in complete sentences that make sense so others may understand you? perhaps a few less "HAHAHAs" might also be effective in making yourself seem less crazy

You being a foreign interloper is the point you dolt! How noble, coming to rescue your fellow interloper comrade Pubicspeech; who you goning to call to cover your rants, HA HA HA, oh sorry, ...NOT HA HA HA!

What's really funny is that everytime one of you are distracted by me, your not attending to your agenda of inciting, dividing, or disarming America, I'm our first line of defense, a hero! HA HA HA, come on, you know you can't resist, here I am, come and get me, HA HA HA!

@ Damon,

@ Citizen (Nutjob) Frank Just what exactly are you exposing? That the rest of us hope like hell you don't have a gun if you run around mad like that all day! Your doing a great job and I'm glad all you have is a keyboard.

Whose mad Demon interloper, when you say "...the rest of us..." I'm sure you're talking about your fellow interloper cronies; which by the way is pretty much what I'm exposing, in case you're too dense to pick up on the theme here! Keep on trying it's hilarious, huh huh HA HA HA.............

then I would also be the guy saying "I then pulled out my gun and shot him before he could reload and continue his shooting spree."

Well, that is a nice fantasy. But in reality this does not happen. In reality, the bad guy kills until he commits suicide or runs away and is caught (dead or alive) later.

Well maybe some of us do think of other people's safety before our own and will not run away and allow others to die.

Well, this is a nice fantasy. But, I think the greater good would be served by placing more emphasis on being a responsible gun owner.

What I am saying is that in a free society being armed makes you much safer than being unarmed, if something should happen to go down right around you.

I know what you are saying it, but is it true? And, is it true for everyone? Would you recommend that everyone have a gun, and carry it around with them in public? Or, are there some people who should not have a gun, even though they are legally allowed, today, to buy one?

There are free societies besides the US, and they don't make it easy for people to get guns. And their murder rates are lower than the US's. Why do you say that being armed makes you safer? Do armed people live longer than unarmed people? If something makes you safe, that should translate into a longer life, yes?

Let me put it to you direct, I think you are fooling yourself. I think you know that your safety is derived primarily from living in an orderly and prosperous society and that people walking around with guns is unnecessary. You know it is unnecessary. I'll give you $100 a week to leave your gun at home. Deal?

@ Davey

But, and I think we can agree on this, it is VERY unsafe to use a gun to rob a bank.

If you actually want to get the money...a gun (or preception of a gun / or other weapom) is necessary.

[The criminal] will almost certainly end up dead or in jail.

Preventing bank robberies arent the primary reason for gun ownership. While it is not implausible a bank robber could choose to rob the bank, rape the hostages then kill them....its more unlikely because of the exposure. Your house...at night...in your room....with a dark shadow at your bedroom door is another story.

Is it dangerous for criminals?...uh yeah....until the moment they throw down the weapon....go to jail and get spewed back onto the street again. For every Forensic Files case that is solved...hundreds go unsolved.

Davey, once a criminal decides to intiate a crime on someone, there is only ever a total of 100% safety / survival that can be divided up between the perp and victim. (Prior to the criminal engaging, the victim had 100%.)

The percentage of control, you as a citizen want, over the outcome of a crime against you is really your choice. You can leave the criminal at your bedroom door with near 100% leverage over you...or you can drop his chances to 50% and raise yours from 0%.... to 50% with a firearm.

As I stated above, having a firearm in a conflict really only raises your odds of survival...not guarantees it.

Without the will to survive, Davey...only time stands between you and a criminal. You can spew odds all day long. That is, until it's your door that opens one night.

-

-

-

@ Coral Taxi

Hello!

Davey:

I have been a concealed handgun carrier since 1996. I can't tell you for sure that my gun saved mine and my wife's lives but I can tell you it certainly prevented a crime. My wife and I were walking on the beach in Galveston Tx late one night. when we were approached by a very young, short Hispanic male. He aggressively accused us of cutting him off on the highway... Now I wasn't afraid of him for two reasons. One I was bigger, two I had my .380 with me. He insisted I was the one who cut him off. When I asked him what kind of car I drove he said "don't back talk me" I looked over his shoulder and saw 4 other Hispanic guys waiting to jump in on the "fun" an obvious gang initiation. I pulled by 380 out and pointed it square at his forehead. His eyes opened wide and his face turned pale. He threw his hands up and stepped back. I told him he was mistaken and he walked back to his buddies. I didn't have a cell phone to call the police at the time so my wife and I hurried back to our hotel and called the police. the reporting officer told me I we were lucky because a gang had be jumping beachgoers and beating them up, badly, just for kick. Today I know several Houston police officers, they all encourage CHL for citizens.

Pandora6, #1.98- I think there should have been a "Psychologist" there during this 19 hour stand-off to "buffer" the situation and try to get him to surrender and come out instead of throwing gas in and blasting bullhorns at him. He was obviously Mentally Ill and They, the Police, could have used a large chunk of that 19 hours to work with a Psychologist to put together a profile of what was possibly going on with him. They knew who he was, his age, possibilities of Alzheimers, etc AND obviously "acting out" behavior, purposeful only within the realm of Mental Illness and specifically here, it seems like his deliberate target was "Masculinity", whereas Lanza's seemed to be "Vulnerability". It's called INVESTIGATION, to try and find an alternative to just killing him without making any other attempt at an alternative! There would be so much more information to be garnered with these perpetrators taken "alive". Plus, how about the deterrent factor that could come out of a showing from the Police that if you do something like this they're going to do everything possible to apprehend you ALIVE! instead of this overzealous and unwarranted rush to KILL!

Andrew Wolf, #1.7- EXACTLY! I've seen some of the sweetest little old Ladies vacillate from Jeckle to Hyde in an instant and with increased frequency as the Alzheimers progressed. I know 3 different People in 3 diffrent stages who all say that the problem is not about "losing" but about having too much "literally" on their minds, compounded over years!

@ Davey

Well, that is a nice fantasy. But in reality this does not happen. In reality, the bad guy kills until he commits suicide or runs away and is caught (dead or alive) later.

In reality it does happen, but I admit its rare. You know why? Because both concealed permits and mass shootings are technically rare. (More people die from lightning strikes a year than mass shootings.) Now try to marry up those two rare things into one venue.

As far as responsible gun owners...I agree. But, not everytime a concealed gun owner has been at the scene of a crime, has the gun been used. Sometimes the owner doesnt feel they can safely employ it or the situation hasnt elevated to that need....i.e. a standard bank robbery.

....and is caught (dead or alive) later.

I'm curious...what made him dead? Do you know that the same right a police officer has to kill a criminal is derived from the same rights that you have to kill a criminal. A police officer can no more shoot a criminal that isnt presenting a danger to life, limb, rape or eyesight than you can.

-

-

@ The Man

Glad you two were not injured.

Oops! Correction. Jeckyl (spelling?:) Hands up in the air. My Bad! DON'T SHOOT!

A police officer can no more shoot a criminal that isnt presenting a danger to life, limb, rape or eyesight than you can.

And get away with it? Well, of course the policeman has much more freedom to kill . You might want to be aware of that, the next time you are chatting with a policeman.

In case you need an example:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/No-grand-jury-in-woodcarver-shooting-case-2174490.php

If you did that, you would be in jail.

If you did that, you would be in jail

Not completely true davey.....George Zimmerman isn't in jail. :/

Zimmerman is not in jail. But, if George Zimmerman was a policeman, he would not be in his current situation. In fact, George Zimmerman is a good example of how civilians and policemen have different rules of engagement.

If a policeman says that he was jumped, and if the policeman can show scars, case closed.

@ Davey

Well, of course the policeman has much more freedom to kill.

Well of course! It all makes sense now!.... :/

A police officer has no more rights to shoot than you do...period. I am a prior law enforcement officer for the government. 120 hours of law enforcement / physical security school covering the administration of justice 101, 102, 148A, 201, 361. There is no need to ask another police officer.

In your story, an investigation was conducted and regardless whether you agree with the verdict...he didnt just kill without oversight. Sometimes cases don't turn out and slam the door on the obviously guilty (i.e. Casey Anthony).....but, the system did its job. Casey Anthony was found innocent because of a reasonable doubt. Just because she was found innocent doesnt mean murder is legal. :)

Night.

dman,

You really think some 64-year-old could kill 4 people and injure several others without a gun?

to answer that question....YES! there are many ways that he could have accomplished it. hell, he'd already started one fire, he could have made a bomb, he could have used a bow, a sword, a car, a bat, a chemical weapon, a knife, etc.etc.etc

You bet, wasneverthere. What about thermonuclear devices too? He could have built one of those too, or maybe a martian transmagorifier.

A man with a bat or a sword has to get right next to his victims to strike. Building a bomb requires knowledge, as does use of chemical weapons.

@ Dman

You really think some 64-year-old could kill 4 people and injure several others without a gun?

Do you really think this gun could kill 4 people and injure several others without a 64-year-old deciding to murder?

sabotandheat - You could pose that question with equal logic about a nuclear weapon. By itself, it is harmless. It is only in conjunction with human activity that it will ever detonate.

Neither is harmful without the other.

So, which would you ban, humans, or nuclear weapons?

Tough question, huh?

@ Dman

Neither is harmful without the other.

Youre missing a piece though. Simply adding a human to a weapon doesnt create a crime with a weapon. You have to add intent (or will) to commit murder or a crime with that firearm. So indeed, it is people that kill people. The implements are irrelevant if the will exists. People can make a weapon to kill from anything. A firearm (or any weapon) can't find an operator from anything...it has to be a human.

So, which would you ban, humans, or nuclear weapons? Tough question, huh?

It might be a hard question if there were only ever two options in life. Thankfully for people who think before they react, there are usually three or more options.

The only question that has to be asked is...who will abide by any given ban?

Since you brought nuclear weapons into the picture...would you suppose banning nuclear weapons from use by the U.S. if a rogue state like Iran suddenly has them and the delivery method? At that point they have capability, oppurtunity and motive.

Some above might say, both of us having nuclear weapons creates a mutually assured destruction so it will prevent death. Some say everyone will die. I can tell you...many bleeding hearts would choose the third option. Make the U.S. give up its weapons under a ban that only the U.S. would follow (in our Iran vs. the U.S. scenario.)

It's absurd to think there arent some who just have the will to murder...and regardless of implement, will find a way....just as Iran is trying to find a way right now!

Youre missing a piece though. Simply adding a human to a weapon doesnt create a crime with a weapon

No, Sabotandheat, you are missing the point. There are certain items which are simply too dangerous to be common household possessions. Nuclear weapons definitely fall into such a list. I would say the same of hand grenades, flamethrowers and mortars. Maybe 99% of those people who possessed such military ordinance would do so responsibly. But by making them widely available, it would make it a mathematical certainty that sooner of later somebody with criminal intent would get a hold of one.

I would also say the same of some firearms.

I wouldn't put shotguns in the same bucket; they are useful for hunting, or for defense of the home, and are not easily concealed.

I would so categorize assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and certain other cherished paraphernalia of the more rabid gun owning set.

I'm on the fence regarding concealed carry permits.

Since you brought nuclear weapons into the picture...would you suppose banning nuclear weapons from use by the U.S. if a rogue state like Iran suddenly has them and the delivery method? At that point they have capability, oppurtunity and motive.

Don't be silly. Nobody is advocating unilateral disarmament. We cannot control what Iran does, we can only react to it. Banning nuclear weapons only makes sense if there is some global authority able and willing to enforce such a ban on all nations. This does not exist and is not likely to in my lifetime.

But, here in the U.S.A. we have the means [but not the political will] to impose a nation-wide ban on assault weapons. No, we cannot immediately ferret out all such weapons currently in private hands. However, we can choke off the supply, and if far fewer of these weapons are sold to private entities, far fewer will fall into the hands of criminals.

It's absurd to think there arent some who just have the will to murder...and regardless of implement, will find a way....just as Iran is trying to find a way right now!

It is absurd to assert that all such recent mass shootings as those at West Virginia Tech, at Sandy Hook, in a movie theater in Colorado, and many, many others could have occurred if the perpetrators did not have access to high capacity weapons.

The shooters in all these crimes were enabled by the availability of high-capacity weapons. There is simply no way somebody like Seung-Hui Cho kills 32 people armed with a bat or a Samarai Sword. Perhaps 1 in 100 such people have the training and skill to craft a home made bomb, secret it in a public place in such a way that it is undetected, and manage to detonate it at the correct moment. But as the recently attempted Time Square car-bombing shows, such endeavors are not uniformly successful, and that bomber had access to trained terrorists.

For most would-be mass killers, the only means at their disposal is a gun. In the United States we have such shootings somewhere every week, sometimes we have two in a week. In Europe, there is such an incident about once in a decade.

This is not a difficult math equation to evaluate.

Is it?

D-man,

building a thermo nuclear device would be all but impossible for someone that isn't "state" sponsored. besides not being able to obtain that material, i highly doubt there are very many folks running around with the knowledge and tools to build a TN device. so stop being absurd.

you asked,

You really think some 64-year-old could kill 4 people and injure several others without a gun?

and the answer is YES. it doesn't take any knowledge to start a fire. a match and $1 worth of gasoline is all it would take. heck, for that matter, he could have easily have made Molotov cocktails with ease. those don't take any kind of training to make and could be quie deadly. there are plenty of household chemicals that he could have mixed together to either start a fire or make a toxic gas. yet again none of those take any training to make. hell, he could have just run them over in a car if he was inclined to do so. many, many other ways that he could have killed folks and not used a gun. stop being an idiot and open your eyes

so YES, a 64 year old man could easily of killed 4 people without a gun. you are letting your liberal ideology obstruct common sense. your hate for "scary guns and magazines" is making you look foolish

@ Dman

Don't be silly. Nobody is advocating unilateral disarmament. We cannot control what Iran does, we can only react to it.

Nobody?

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2010/09/16/three-republican-senators-vote-for-unilateral-disarmament/

Nor can we control a criminal or criminals and their actions against us, we can only react to it. One of the reactions is to leave the more effective means for self defense in the hands of the people. Besides, these military style weapons aren't just for home defense. If necessary they can be used for the defense of the country.

I would so categorize assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and certain other cherished paraphernalia of the more rabid gun owning set.

It is a fact, of all the firearm related murders, 75% are committed with handguns. The last 25% are committed with "assault style" rifles, shotguns and long rifles. Not the horror show you make them out to be....and the math isn't difficult is it?

[wide availablity] would make it a mathematical certainty that sooner of later somebody with criminal intent would get a hold of one.

The same can be said of law abiding citizens getting them sooner than later.

You're trying to play the odds...but the odds can be in or favor with more firearms as well. For example, Switzerland. They require all military age males to have a firearm and get training. They have some of the lowest crime rates per capita than anywhere in the world.

There is simply no way somebody like Seung-Hui Cho kills 32 people armed with a bat or a Samarai Sword.

Patently false. In fact blades are more deadly because of the lack of audible signature that one gives when using it. There are countless stories of people killing dozens with blades. "Chinese man kill 8 at College with Machete.", "Man kills 7 children with blade.", "Min Yongjun stabbed 23 children with machete." etc etc.

Perhaps 1 in 100 such people have the training and skill to craft a home made bomb.

Perhaps you wish firearm murder rates had worse odds? But, you'd be wrong. Out of 330 Million Americans, around 14,000 are murdered by firearms a year. That gives you a .00004% chance of being killed a year.

Like this math so far? No? Great, cause the truth hurts. Here's some more.

You can further reduce this risk by simply not being around a gang activity. In L.A. alone, 800+ gang related murders by firearm are committed a year. If you add in every major city center in the U.S., even at lower rates...it's not hard to cover over 80% of the total firearm murders in America.

That leaves you, assuming your not involved in gang activity, 20% of .00004%. That reduces your chances to .000008%. a year.

Even if you say a different murderer for each murder...that comes to 1 in 21,500 people. For people that will use a "Assault Style" rifle (we'll just assume for fun that all 25% of the remaining murder rates are all "AS" rifles) comes to roughly 1 in 81,000.

The 25% divided equally across three different weapons, assault style rifles, shotguns and long rifles, you get a .0000026% chance of being killed by an "Assault Style" rifle a year. Let's definitely focus on the non-issue of "Assault Style" rifles when it comes to firearm safety.

In Europe, there is such an incident about once in a decade.

Complete fabrication. There are at least four I can think of that occurred between 2001 and now. Typical Liberal spin.

D-man,

building a thermo nuclear device would be all but impossible for someone that isn't "state" sponsored. besides not being able to obtain that material, i highly doubt there are very many folks running around with the knowledge and tools to build a TN device. so stop being absurd.

The point, wasneverthere, is that there are items considered too dangerous to be allowed for general use. Atom bombs are beyond the reach of private citizens. But Lars Rockets, flame throwers and grenades are not. Yet we do allow private citizens to own such items because they are too dangerous, and are not necessary for daily living.

The same is true of assault weapons, and, for that matter hand guns.

As to your contention that this killer could have used gasoline and a match to kill 2 people in a barber shop and two more a car watch, I expect that when he started splashing gasoline around the premises somebody would have done something, or at least left the premises.

Yes, he could have surprised people with a molotov coctail. But it is only in the movies that such weapons are safe and dependable for those using them. A person with a flaming rag stuffed in a bottle of gasoline in his hand is just a likely to make himself into a human torch as he is to harm somebody else.

So sorry, I don't buy your view of things.

@ Dman

Don't be silly. Nobody is advocating unilateral disarmament. We cannot control what Iran does, we can only react to it.

Nobody?

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2010/09/16/three-republican-senators-vote-for-unilateral-disarmament/

Well, your issue is with those 3 Senators, as I never advocated such a position. My point was only that some items are so dangerous that we would be better off if they did not exist, or were not readily available. Our world would certainly be better off if no nation had access to nuclear weapons. So too, our society would be better off if all assault weapons were removed from private ownership.

We cannot prevent other nations from developing, testing or deploying nuclear weapons. As a society we can, and should ban assault weapons and make their possession illegal.

That is not too hard a concept, is it?

Complete fabrication. There are at least four I can think of that occurred between 2001 and now. Typical Liberal spin.

You are half-right, there has been more than 1 multiple shooting incident in Europe in the last decade. But it is not a complete fabrication to state that there are far fewer such crimes in all of Europe, than there are in the United States. I googled mass shootings in Europe. Here's the list I came up with:

Mass shootings in Europe

The shootings in the eastern Belgian city of Liege and Florence, Italy, on Tuesday have several precedents over the past 10 years in Europe:

- September 27, 2001 - SWITZERLAND

A man bursts into the local assembly in the central Swiss town of Zug and opens fire, killing 14 members of parliament and local government then turning the gun on himself.

- March 27, 2002 - FRANCE

Eight local councillors are killed and 19 injured when a man opens fire on members of the municipal council of Nanterre, outside Paris. He kills himself the next day while in police custody.

- April 26, 2002 - GERMANY

Sixteen people, including 12 teachers and two students, are gunned down at a school in Erfurt in eastern Germany by a 19-year-old former student, apparently in revenge for having been expelled, who then killed himself.

- November 7, 2007 - FINLAND

An 18-year-old goes on a shooting rampage in a school in the southern Finnish town of Tuusula, killing eight people before shooting himself.

- September 23, 2008 - FINLAND

Eleven people, including the 22-year-old gunman, die in a massacre at a training school at Kauhajoki, Finland.

- March 11, 2009 - GERMANY

Nine pupils, three teachers and three passers-by are killed in a school shooting at Winnenden in southern Germany by a former pupil who then kills himself.

- June 2, 2010 - ENGLAND

Twelve people are killed when a 52-year-old taxi driver goes on a shooting spree in the English region of Cumbria, before killing himself.

- April 9, 2011 - THE NETHERLANDS

A gunman opens fire in a packed mall in the Netherlands, killing six people before shooting himself dead.

- July 22, 2011- NORWAY

A bomb attack on government buildings in Oslo that kills eight is followed by a shooting which kills 69 at a summer holiday camp organised by the ruling Labour party on the island of Utoeya, near to the capital. A right-wing extremist is arrested for carrying out both attacks.

- December 13, 2011 - BELGIUM

Three people, plus the gunman, are killed when a man, armed with grenades, opens fire on a square packed with children and Christmas shoppers in the eastern Belgian city of Liege.

In ITALY a far-right militant kills two Senegalese street vendors and wounds three people in a shooting spree in Florence after which he apparently kills himself.

http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

I count 10, including the two shooting incidents on 12/13/2011, in 10 years.

By contrast, in the U.S. last year, there were 16 such incidents:

February 22, 2012—Five people were killed in at a Korean health spa in Norcross, Georgia, when a man opened fire inside the facility in an act suspected to be related to domestic violence.

February 26, 2012—Multiple gunmen began firing into a nightclub crown in Jackson, Tennessee, killing one person and injuring 20 others.

February 27, 2012—Three students at Chardon High School in rural Ohio were killed when a classmate opened fire.

March 8, 2012—Two people were killed and seven wounded at a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when a gunman entered the hospital with two semiautomatic handguns and began firing.

March 31, 2012—A gunman opened fire on a crowd of mourners at a North Miami, Florida, funeral home, killing two people and injuring 12 others.

April 2, 2012—A 43-year-old former student at Oikos University in Oakland, California, walked into his former school and killed seven people, “execution-style.” Three people were wounded.

April 6, 2012—Two men went on a deadly shooting spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shooting black men at random in an apparently racially motivated attack. Three men died and two were wounded.

May 29, 2012—A man in Seattle, Washington, opened fire in a coffee shop and killed five people and then himself.

July 9, 2012—At a soccer tournament in Wilmington, Delaware, three people were killed, including a 16-year-old player and the event organizer, when multiple gunmen began firing shots, apparently targeting the organizer.

July 20, 2012—James Holmes enters a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opens fire with a semi-automatic weapon; twelve people are killed and fifty-eight are wounded.

August 5, 2012—A white supremacist and former Army veteran shot six people to death inside a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before killing himself.

August 14, 2012—Three people were killed at Texas A&M University when a 35-year-old man went on a shooting rampage; one of the dead was a police officer.

September 27, 2012—A 36-year-old man who had just been laid off from Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered his former workplace and shot five people to death, and wounded three others before killing himself.

October 21, 2012—45-year-old Radcliffe Frankin Haughton shot three women to death, including his wife, Zina Haughton, and injured four others at a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin, before killing himself.

December 11, 2012—A 22-year-old began shooting at random at a mall near Portland, Oregon, killing two people and then himself.

December 14, 2012—One man, and possibly more, murders a reported twenty-six people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, including twenty children, before killing himself.

So in one year, the U.S.A. had more mass shootings than Europe has since 2001. Tell me again about "Typical Liberal spin", and while you are at it, explain to me why conservatives seem chiefly to conserve their mental energy, and get their exercise by ducking facts and jumping over logical gaps in their "theories".

@ Dman

Typical Liberal spin is stating

In Europe, there is such an incident about once in a decade

then, after I called you a liar....you decided to actaully look up the facts and refute your own non-sense.

That's Liberal spin.

Last I checked, Europe had two genocides in the last 75 years, the death toll reaching a total of 40+ Million people dead (Russia, 30 Million of their own.)

You know why that happened? Because of control hungry governments disarmed their people prior to implementing the "Change" to move "Forward."

You nail down a "body for body" score card thats worse than that for America. Then you can DARE argue the "virtues" of Europe. Until then, even with assault rifles in every Americans hands....humans have never been as safe in history, as they have been in America.

No amount of your backbiting to our U.S. Constitution will change that.

@ Dman

Nobody is advocating unilateral disarmament.

Nobody? (webnews article followed)

Well, your issue is with those 3 Senators...

You either don't want to read...or you have fuzzy math...i.e. 3 Republican Senators + "every Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee" = "issue is with those 3 Senators"

Silly Liberal. Spin much?

You could've left "with guns" out of it!

He didn't use toothpicks.

NOT:

Key Word 'NUT', Not a sane law abiding person.

another incident of a tooth pickless nut killing people...

damon-1415903

Why? Guns are what he used to kill 4 people and injure 2 more!

You're generalizing everyone who owns a gun as being a 'nut'.

If that's true, then so is anyone who is armed including police and military. You want to go say that to them?

Are you implying a sane person would go around shooting people?

Not a generalization at all unless you have a "nut" complex. It is just another example of a NUT with guns. That's exactly the problem...too many NUTS with guns. Doesn't mean that every gun owner is a nut at all. Your jumping to conclusions is the reason why we are unable to have an intelligent discussion in this country about the problem of NUTS having guns.

sure they do in afghanistand and in iraq...we come in peace shoot to kill...

yes. We need to ban nuts. They are dangerous.

Yeah...It seems the liberals would be more happy if this nut job plowed into a crowd with a car and killed 4 people,then this same nut job using a shotgun...BTW how is all that gun control working out in New York ??...I'm sure the citizens there now feel safer that wacko's can only use 7 rds in their magazines....wait this wacko used a shotgun??..but I'm sure if he used a rifle he would have only used 7 rds to be law abiding.

You know what? It's not law abiding citizens like my husband and myself who do things like this. We have a few different types of guns, including an AR15 assault rifle. As for the rest of our collection, all of them are simply pistols we use in case we need to defend ourselves and our families. So I am pro-gun rights all the way. The criminals will always have access to them and law abiding citizens shouldn't be sitting ducks.

Also, isn't it interesting that cities with the strictest gun laws have such a high rate of gun violence? Not true in states like mine, with much more lenient gun laws. Thank God I live in Texas, where my husband and I are able to have permits to carry concealed. And we do. If a cop pulls you over for any reason, you have to show them your license and let them know if you're packing heat. Guns don't kill people. Mad men with guns kill people.

Nuts are a lot safer if they don't own guns.

MSN is playing a smart game with the gun debate. They are keeping it in the public mind by almost daily having articles on the Home page about guns. Today for instances is an article explaining what semi, and fully automatic are, and the difference between low cap mags, and high(standard) cap mags. They know that if they dont most people will forgot, and move on to the next thing to get emotional about, and want "Change now". It is also helping keep some peoples minds of the economy.

Or there's people being shot in the news.

OMG! Are you that FRIGGIN' clueless? Guns will always find their way into the hands of criminals. And if you outlaw guns, those of us who ARE law abiding citizens are SITTING DUCKS. And those of us who own guns aren't "insane", we're prepared. We know the ins and outs of all the gun laws. I thank God I don't live in some nanny state where strict gun laws are leaving innocent people unable to defend themselves against the gun toting criminals. Let me tell you anti-gun folks something. If I were threatened with violence out in public or in my home, I would NOT HESITATE to pull the trigger. Guns should never be outlawed. You live in a fantasy world.

Right, like they do in China? Oh wait, the nuts use axes and knives there to kill people. Oops. Total fail on your last sentence. Oh, BTW, a lot of civilized countries have perfectly legal gun ownership and lower gun violence rates to boot.

Ex..Why can't you liberals understand it's not the responsible law abiding citizens that is doing all of the carnage ..It's the wacko's and criminal thugs...instead of attacking the 2nd amendment,why don't you focus your rage on drunk drivers who kill 10 times more people each year then guns...and remember for every thug or wacko who misuses a gun there's 100 million gun owners who don't..and everyday there are law abiding citizens who use guns against violent attacks,,a little fact that you conveniently left out.

Just last night, here in Houston, a home invader was shot and critically injured by the homeowner. Who knows what would've happened if this man had not had the means to defend himself and his family.

actually, a person p!ssed off for some good reason in their mind would, or a criminal.... fact is, no one here knows why this guy did it, yet possibly there is a reason? of course there is always a reason but will it be a generated one?

for instance, the sandyhook shooter never fired one shot from the assault weapon left in the trunk of the car he used to get to the school... yet here we have assault weapon bans trying to be enforced.... why? they used 2 automatic pistols, and the assault weapon was found in the trunk... so tell us how he could have used it.

if there ever was a time in my life I lost faith in our governments ability to be for the people, and the media to he honest with the people, it was after this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1363268044

that vid I just now stumbled across, but the same reasons I had as everything unfolded.... peeps, were being duped

I watched the footage, heard the comments before this was posted... reasons I had my doubts, just glad someone was taking notes.

Amazing how 2 idiots spout on, and on about how: "Two days ago he was sane, ...insanity caused him to buy his first gun...tomorrow another gun nut will kill someone. This will go on and on until guns are outlawed." "do sane people go around shooting people? Nuts are safer if they don't have guns."

The lunatic in question was obviously NOT sane 2 days ago. The vast majority of folk who "buy their 1st gun" do so for rationale reasons NOT because they are insane. Tomorrow many people will die of cancer caused by being exposed to numerous things in their day to day environment. (breathing. eating, living in general) Many will be killed in automobile related accidents, some will be electrocuted, some will be killed by bees, wasps, snakes, ETC.

The military, police, etc. would still have guns IF guns were outlawed. Who would monitor their membership so none of them would misuse their guns insanely? Who would determine what would constitute insane misuse of their guns IF they were the only ones who had guns? "Our" politicians?!!

Exidiotuser & nutfiveo you 2 need to get your heads out of each other's a$$, and quit worshiping your goddess feinstein the ugly freak.

Guns only do what PEOPLE have them do.

Guns save lives:

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/tx-restaurant-owner-shoots-kills-would-be-burglar-who-entered-restaurant-through-roof/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/81-year-old-fl-man-shoots-alleged-robber-after-suspect-followed-him-for-20-minutes/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/tx-store-owner-shoots-and-kills-would-be-robber-armed-with-toy-gun/

.

NBC's deceitful agenda doesn't allow for examples of firearms being used lawfully to protect lives and property.

NBC wants only criminals to have guns.

"Another incident of a nut with guns killing people." Notfiveo

Thank you for realizing it was the person and not the gun that did this. Most "gun control" freaks would have said:

Another incident of a gun with nuts killing people.

"This will go on and on until guns are outlawed." Yahoo

Thank you for being one of the few "gun control" advocates who is honest enough to admit the true intentions.

ExYahooUser---tomorrow another gun nut will replace him!!! I think with an attitude like that it could be you. First let me say he had multiple guns in his house he only used one, next people are probably saying today he was such a nice guy, I wonder what happened, or not. Third People have been doing this kind of thing since way before the gun ever existed so when you condemn the gun it is time to re-focus back to the reality man is an animal and animals kill. If there are no more guns people will still kill, it is a fact of life and with all the different people in the world nothing will change it. But please tell me what civilized country does not have killings and just for fun lets make them the same size and amount of people as the United states. I hate being compared to countries the size of a peanut when compared to US.

Right, like they do in China? Oh wait, the nuts use axes and knives there to kill people. Oops. Total fail on your last sentence. Oh, BTW, a lot of civilized countries have perfectly legal gun ownership and lower gun violence rates to boot.

So, anilof, counting Switzerland, that would amount to a total of... one.

In Switzerland, all adult males are subject to military service, either in active duty, or in the reserves. The guns common in Switzerland are only allowable as a condition of military service, and concealed carry permits are as rare there as hens teeth.

I will say that this murder could have happened virtually anywhere. The weapon used, a shot gun, is legal even in countries such as England, which banned hand guns some time ago.

many countries have a mandatory serve your country mandate... don't hear too much from those about gun control do we? CCP's are not a matter of issue, because no real stat can be added even in our own country that this is a problem, seeing most of the CC's were done by criminals, and also illegally. the point of gun control lunatics who cower in corners afraid of their own shadow, don't realize its the governments shadow you need to be afraid of.

proof is in the puddin' when looking at sandy hook.... it was one big government hoax, to keep you in fear.

pro-freedom, "You're generalizing everyone who owns a gun as a nut". Sorry, but that wasn't the point at all. What the man was trying to get across, is that we have to keep guns away from the REAL nuts. Psychos like Holmes, Lanza, and this whacko. Nobody wants to take everybody's guns, but we sure get tired of mopping up the carnage from some freak that had a bad day. Yes, gun ownership is a right, but as with all rights, it comes with a responsibility. If you are not willing to accept the responsibilities, then you do not deserve the right. You are now free to hate away.

"Guns will always find their way into the hands of criminals". And how do they get there? Either bought or stolen. Close loopholes on sales of guns, gunshows, online, and private owners. And stiff penalties for "straw buyers". Next, if you have a gun stolen, report it immediately, and give all necessary information, serial numbers, caliber, description. It won't do any good if the gun is used in a murder, then tracked to you, and you say,"Well, it just disappeared last year sometime"

Close loopholes on sales of guns, gunshows, online, and private owners.

There are no loopholes.

It is a Federal felony to be a straw-purchaser.

Next, if you have a gun stolen, report it immediately, and give all necessary information, serial numbers, caliber, description.

Not everyone inventories their firearms every day. If your car is stolen at 3:00AM and used in a hit-and-run, should you be responsible?

Punishing people for the acts of others stinks on ice.

.

ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE.

.

Not everyone inventories their firearms every day. If your car is stolen at 3:00AM and used in a hit-and-run, should you be responsible?

If a gun of yours goes missing without you noticing, you've got serious problems. If you don't notice, we're not talking about a thug breaking and entering while you're not home. It is either a family member or you're a grossly unobservant and negligent gun owner. The only situation I can envision for the latter is this: you left your gun out, left the door unlocked, a thief just walked in and helped themselves, and you didn't notice.

I do agree that a reasonable amount of time should be afforded to report a gun stolen. But that window shouldn't exceed 48 hours after discovery. It is the duty of a responsible gun owner to let the authorities know a firearm is out of his possession. It covers the butt of the owner and helps the police.

Punishing people for the acts of others stinks on ice.

Any gun accessible to thieves means you bear part responsibility unless you took preventative measures, such as storing your firearms in a gun safe bolted to the floor. If I leave my car running while I go into a building "real quick" for a half hour, I ought to share some responsibility if my car is stolen and used in a high speed chase that kills a baby. Because I was negligent!

ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE.

I'm for it. But we need to restore funding to the agencies responsible and lower the number of restrictions imposed on them. The authority, funding, and ability of these agencies to operate has been gutted over the past 30 years.

There are no loopholes? Sure there are. While licensed gun store owners are required to run background checks, even at gun shows, private owners are exempted from that restriction. Therefore, there are loopholes. If you have so many guns that you can't keep track of them, you have too many.

Its to bad we cant have a society that allows you to do what you want when you want, how you want. As long as you dont hurt another person physically, economically, or socially. I'll stay out of your life, you stay out of mine, and if you need help I'll be there for you, and hopfully you'll do the same for me. Its seems like such an easy concept.

Sling shots too!

Are you guys ever going to stop with this NRA crapola? It's like listening to a two-year old try to debate an issue. This is once again a case of a legal gun owner going berserk with his weapons. That is almost a standard M.O. for these mass shootings. All the more reason we should have mental health exams as a mandatory requirement for gun purchasers. Unfortunately there are millions just like this guy who already own weapons. Those are also the people who would never voluntarily submit to such an exam.

thats how the simple minded people operate. they get fixated on stuff other than the real problem. you know the pos that pulls the trigger.

voxrationis

Who said anything about the NRA?

“We saw a guy walking around the shop,” Dillon said of the killings she witnessed from a nearby sidewalk. “There were two shots fired. We watched him reload the gun."

Sounds like a Joe Biden double-barrel to me...Does this mean that they will ban JoeB specials now also?

I think some are missing a couple key issues.... look at the age group of those shot, late 50's-60's but 1 who was a government employee, and possibly tried to stop him.

then you also have, this was unlikely random. so he wasn't berserk as some want to say, but more bent on revenge. he walked into 1 place killed 2 people, wounded 2. as calm as he was, im sure he could have more than wounded them with ease.

thus this is one case out of millions of legal firearm owners.... are you really seriously that afraid of .000001%?

Ban fingers.

voxrationis

Where in this story does it state that he is a legal gun owner? Where are the statistics involving millions of nut cases owning firearms? NRA is a defender of our (YOUR) 2nd amendment right. M.O is hardly a description about this guy's motive. Not even the police know what his M.O. is. Obviously you are a poor appraiser of human nature. Anything can set anyone off at any time. And it doesn't always end up with a firearm. Leave the psychiatric evaluation to the certified and the cause of a crime to the professionals. Had anyone of these poor victims have had a firearm they maybe could have prevented their own demise. Think about it. Chances are you never even held a firearm of any type. Assumption I know. But then you already know about assumptions. Don't you. (Notice, not a question.)

The NRA doesn't defend my right to a firearm. I don't belong to a militia, so I don't have a right to a firearm. Niether do you unless you are part of the National Guard or another recognized legal militia.

public militias are legal militias. you idiots need to read the constitutional amendment before you pretend to know everything about it. also he apparently didnt own an assault rifle otherwise the article would say "there was an assault rifle present" considering they like to milk people who dont own guns fear of the unknown. anyone who isnt educated on weapons is always pro guncontrol and it shows in how they talk about them.

Nah, ExYahooUser, the courts have more than once upheld the right to bear arms. Next you'll want the government to take away our knives, because they are dangerous and can cause mass casaulties. Then, how about cars, as they kill more people than guns do. Then how about doctors, because there is a chance you may die in their care. Then how about banning meteors, because one may fall out of the sky and kill someone.

I know, I'm being ridiculous, but banning guns is just as ridiculous. Why? Because guns on their own don't kill anyone. It's the people holding them. And once again, someone is trying to punish the entire population because of a very select few.

EXyahoo,

it's always the same thing with you almost everyday. we've already been over this before, but you are refusing to see the truth when its laid before you about the 2nd amendment.

have a good day

ExYahooUser

NRA doesn't tell you to have a firearm. Or telling you to own one. They simply defend the right to bare arms. But yes sir I do have the right to own a firearm. It's my choice to make that decision. Not Obama or his administration. I am a veteran yes, but it's not why I own a firearm. I hunt on occasion yes. I also want it on hand for protection. I myself do not belong to a militia of any sorts. I have no assault weapons. One hand gun and a lever action 30-30. Had them for years. I am however a member of the NRA long before Charleston Hesston was the president of the Org. Whether you want a gun or not. It is your choice. The NRA simply upholds the 2nd amendment. Has not a thing to do with a militia.

I think the liberals are already spinning this one pretty well. The truth is this is just the cops denying another man accused (NOT convicted) of a crime his right to due process.

Why did he only shoot at the dog?

Police "His attack on us was completely unprovoked. We just sent the dog in and told it to 'tear him up', I have no idea why he opened fire on it"

Another thing that doesn't quite fit.. He had no problem shooting for no reason at 4 random people, killing them, but doesn't shoot at police officers? And out of all the weapons he supposedly had, he chooses a low-capacity, short range shot gun?

Nice try, Cuomo, your fabrication of a story is even worse than the LAPDs version of Dorner's.

ExYahooUser

The NRA doesn't defend my right to a firearm. I don't belong to a militia, so I don't have a right to a firearm. Niether do you unless you are part of the National Guard or another recognized legal militia.

The Supreme Court has already upheld the right of individuals to own firearms. So your fixation on militias is misplaced. However, for the record, anyone who is eligible for the draft is part of the militia.

Kim Jong: they sure are, notice how this article only used "shotgun" once in a direct quote as if it was speculation that the weapon was a shotgun.

Wouldnt want to show up VP Biden. But then again (if it were a Republican VP that talked about poppiung a couple of shotgun blasts), NBC would be linking the shooter to those comments and NBC loyalists would lay the murder at his feet. So predictable.

O and by the way, no present proposed gun legislation would have stopped this incident.

" Alzheimers makes you lose your memory, not your temper." Your so wrong!! It affects all parts of the brain and attach each person in different ways. I have seen several people with sever anger problems because of it. Some very quiet and sweet people get violent even. It can cause all kinds of brain problems and anger is one of them!!

@ Denver Bill, take a second and go back to the first few threads herein. Take notice the effort being made. Look at who's posting here over and over again other than you and I. You're arguing with a concerted effort that does not care about anything beyond their agenda to incite, divide, and disarm America.

When you bite they will play you like a sport fish; they're trollers.

Good Luck!

@ the interloper trollers, HA HA HA HA, foiled again!

@C,Frank,

I agree... newsvine is full of government trolls, or the insane if not both. show them ration argument and they collapse it, or try to twist it in some form one has no clue where it is coming from.... but lets look at facts...

the government has for a long time wanted to disarm Americans. looking at the Sandy Hook (cough) massacre, there are some things not adding up, and leading on a newer set of laws for legal gun owners...so, how tell, does a school, that has over 600 children,like in any type of coverage from an event such as Sandy,(but in all cases but) you see victims, survivors, and so on, being led from buildings as law enforcement clears it. even if there is no crew on the ground, you do have a news crew in the air. even in this case, yet something was missing from every live coverage... victims, injured, and surviors... only 1, (one) so called victim was shown being led out on a gurney, and you couldn't tell if it was a bundled bunch of blankets, or a person.... and to a location on that gurney, about 1/3 mile away from the incident? after the area was cleared, not 1 (the only one actually), ambulance was allowed past that 1/3 apx mile barricade... and not one aerial camera caught so much as 1 group of children, or even 1 child being escorted from the scene to a safe location? not one killed child nor adult, even wounded being led away on a stretcher? just a photo... why do not the stories compiled make any sense about what took place during and after? making sense I mean, not one jives with the other... why the story changed from no rifle, and 2-4 hand guns, to only an assault rifle, no handguns?

well one could say all the reports coming in, blah blah blah... but actual footage does not lie... nor do comments made on any of that footage...

exsplain how parents of said killed children could crack a smile during interviews 1-6 days after, and how 1 child, who was killed appeared with president Nobama days later, actually, there was a few pics of that one.. and facebook pages with said creation dates, set up as donation, and comment contribution before the event took place, and names known on said sites before victim list was released to parents?

@ NM, the wrong government! HA HA HA, you clowns crack me up! I can't stop laughing at you interlopers. You've been shut down, try another story, HA HA HA HA...............

show me a photo of an ambulance picking up victims near the school? show me a photo of more than one ambulance in the area? show me more than one photo of children being led from the scene or even one with emergency response teams in the background?

by show me a photo, meaning provide me with a link....

Mossy, did they put tin foil hats on sale again? I guess you're a birther too. Your insistence on this bullspit topic makes it even easier to disregard any other posts from you that may, on the surface, look almost coherent.

then you should have no problem, posting a link to photos? there isn't any... prove it to prove me wrong then call me a tin foil hatter' or what ever you feel like... sounds more than ez, and fair enough doesn't it?

of all the news coverage at the scene... you show and prove me wrong

been a while since any one decided to prove me wrong, so here's something to think about... in case you don't see it right off, here is a pic of a victim of the sandy hook shooting.... as well a picture of her with president Nobama, AFTER she was killed.... obviously, she wasn't a victim?

http://lawenforcementtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Sandy-Hook.jpg

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sandy-1.jpg
http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sandy-hook-parker-family.jpg

ok, so here's my pic, in relation we are being duped.... some one want to discredit me? seeing its been well over an hour since I posted being duped on this thread, and not one post to prove me wrong, figure here's one to think about... at least I made an effort to prove my case, and there are more things to go on... so start putting up.

Citizen Frank

@ Denver Bill, take a second and go back to the first few threads herein. Take notice the effort being made.

Frank,

You're right, but I just can't help myself.

@Citizen (Nutjob) Frank If you need a hug or something, it's ok to say it. Don't blow up your keyboard or shoot your monitor.

seeing how I was bored, and will walk the walk, (put up or shut up), here are a few more things to consider with photo proof or reason to question....

http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting.jpg
where are the emergency response vehicals?
http://s0.jrnl.ie/media/2012/12/connecticut-school-shooting-6-630x433.jpg
this same day, most of the teaching staff drove their black vans, and SUV's into work, for? meaning for 600 kids, see a lack of cars in a sealed off area that should be those of teachers?
http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1489938.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/The+website+for+Sandy+Hook+School
if classes were cancelled that day.... then where or why were there classes?
http://www.vigli.org/Avalon/Sandy_Hook_School_Support_Fund_Date_of_creation.jpg
now that's thinking ahead....
http://www.thedailydigest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Robbie-Parker-Laughing-Sandy-Hook-School.jpg
now talking about taking the death of your daughter hard... this poor guy!
http://www.insanemedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/shooting-map-sandy-hook.jpg
something odd, they arrested a man in the woods, close by the school, and witnesses reported this man was handcuffed, and placed in the FRONT SEAT of a squad car... in my time i have never seen such a thing, being there is immediate access to law enforcement equipment. even if they consider you a non threat, and a civilian, you do not get to sit in the front seat of a squad, unattended.

so, elaborate hoax, all to help put the public in favor of more federal gun control? odd, that most if not all of the people interviewed to include Robbie parker a part of an actors guild? why would our government do such a horrible horrible thing would seem unimaginable even to myself... yet there "some" just a small part of it is.... with that ill stop less someone wants to prove im full of bs and tin foil hats again? but before you do that, post a little something to discredit me will you? after all, you as well I can say what we want to... I just try to back it up, vs say it and meaning because I did so, makes it true.

@ Damon the foreign interloper,

@Citizen (Nutjob) Frank If you need a hug or something, it's ok to say it. Don't blow up your keyboard or shoot your monitor.

Hug the homely interloper sitting in the cubicle next to you and just pretend it's handsome me, HA HA HA, what a maroon! Why would I harm my computer and give up all of this fun, besides my guns in the safe where it belongs, for now that is, HA HA HA............

@ Denver Bill, enjoy!

whats really cool is, not as of yet, has anyone come up with anything to make me look like a tin foil hatter', lol...

@Citizen(nutjob)Frank Maybe you don't fully understand me....I am a proud owner of a LAR-15, Smith &Wesson 45, 9MM Ruger P90, and a Remington 870 shotgun. My guns are not in a safe and nor have they harmed anything besides a piece of paper. A nut killing someone is just a nut killing someone. It doesn't matter how they do it. I'm an American, 4yrs active duty USMC, currently national guard. There is no reason to disarm Americans because of what criminals do here.

nah we will just ignore stupid comments

actually, if people treated others with a little more respect, and common decency you'd be so surprised at how fast the number of firearm related deaths would drop...

what a totally uneducated comment Joe

yes the crack heads that commit most crimes need to learn better manners...i'm sure they will put that on their to do list...excuse me while i shoot your friend please...how proper...

Kurt Meyers has been shot and killed! I am from Herkimer NY and they are announcing it on the radios that the suspect has been shot and killed! I hope you rot in hell you SOB!

Wonder if he was a member of the NRA. Na he couldn't have been, they only shoot bad guys.

Naughty Mossy you are absolutely right. A little more respect in this world and this whole debate would be unneccessary. This assualt weapons ban and magazine restriction are all pointless. All it will do is put a lot of honest hard working people out of a job. Weopons bans do nothing to protect anyone. Take this case for instance. A. No assualt weapon used. B. Obvious mental issue here. C. New York has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. As does chicago. But where do all these stories come out of. New York, Chicago, California. Sure there were two outliers one being Aurora and the other Connecticut. But ohhh wait both of those shooters had a history of mental illness.

I carry a concealed weapon daily. I have serveral different rifles at home in my locked gunsafe each serves a different purpose. With that said I support better back ground checks. I support any proposal that would allow mental health proffesionals to report possible individuals to the back ground checks support. I would have no issue participating in a mental health examination. I would support back ground checks being required for private sales as long as gun shops don't try to over profit from the process. I believe those are the reasonable steps to take to reduce gun violence.

WOW are there really that many STUPID people out there? I did NOT see any mention of the NRA. So your post is STUPID & has NOTHING to do with the story.

I see it is always better to blame the NRA instead of the person that actually did the KILLING, how pathetic can you LIBERAL IDIOTS get.

I really would like to remind gun advocates of a simple statistical concept. It is called "Expected Value". "Expected Value" is the product of the probability of the occurrence of an event and the impact of the event. The higher the "Expected Value" of the event, the higher the attention you give to control the outcome of the event. Let me concede that the probability of a gun owner (legal or illegal) going berserk like this situation is low even though recent events are showing us otherwise. If we value human lives, the impact is so grave that we should be doing everything we can to influence the outcome. It is the same principle we apply to air travel. The probability of a terrorist among the daily millions of air travelers is infinitesimally small, yet we subject every air traveler to invasive body search either electronically or physically. For me, any gun beyond the double barrel shot gun for hunting should be banned. The argument of self defense holds no water. That is why we have societies with law enforcement departments. Would law enforcement be able to prevent every homicide in the hands of criminals possessing guns illegally? No. However, we would loose far less innocent people in the hands of criminals who did everything to illegally possess guns and escape the notice of law enforcement than it is currently happening with legal gun owners gone berserk or careless with their guns. We cannot continue to live as cavemen in the stone age.

Mossy, tell me, how is getting a haircut being disrespectful? Did he not like the style the victim asked for?

The sad thing in debates like this is that both sides try to cater to the extreme of their side. Nobody talks to the millions between the gun lovers and the gun haters. This is the group that seems to suffer the most from the debate and the actions that trigger (no pun intended) the debate. It's not a case of "you either have a houseful of guns, or you never let anyone who owns a gun in your house. There are millions of people that don't have a dog in this fight, and disinformation, from both sides, doesn't do anybody any good. I'm against any kind of gun ban, but am in favor of responsible ownership of guns. The key word is RESPONSIBLE. You don't sell a car without transferring title. You also don't sell a gun without going through the proper channels. This isn't meant to be restrictive. Both of these items are prone to misuse, causing severe injuries. If you want to keep the right to own guns, you have to do the work to protect that right.

@plain bob, crackheads don't carry guns. When was the last time that you heard of a crackhead "shooting" somebody. To crackhead a gun = quick cash. They'll sell it before they actually use it.

plain bob

yes the crack heads that commit most crimes need to learn better manners...i'm sure they will put that on their to do list...excuse me while i shoot your friend please...how proper...

actually, if you take a moment to think, please don't say that you did.. I was referring to in general, mostly of anger fueled, and maybe even drug fueled if you insist, or any other type other than accidental shootings...

it all boils down to respect. in robbery it comes down to entitlement. no respect for ones self to get a job, or the person who worked to get what it is they are seeking, or do something to obtain what it is they need so badly, they shoot someone... for yes the crack head, druggie, no self respect again for self. Then you have anger/rage fueled, no respect that they are not the only ones with feelings desires or needs. the ones who are bullied, and do so, low self respect, and failure to accept that people are, and can be a$$holes.... life goes on, and to do the same. protection of self, family, and property does not fall into this, other than the person who shoots an intruder, is shooting someone who defies their right to feeling safe in their own home, and then have every right to be shot.

putting it all on say "crack heads" or any one particular group, serves nothing but ignorance... yet putting it into perspective, "why cant we all just get along", even tho very open to any and all groups, I feel nothing more would need to be said if this was dealt with as such, vs taking from those who have done nothing wrong, and lose because of certain bad apples...

Hey Evad, if he had more rounds to shoot at once, at least 6 people would be dead, not four.

and if he was a better shot he could had got them too...

Hey, ExYahooUser, prove it. You are speaking completely hypothetically because that is not what occurred. And BTW, he re-loaded during the shootings per an eye witness.

Or Anilof...how about we prove that ALL of the victims would be alive if they were just stabbed rather than shot?

It's a good thing he didn't have a triple barrel shotgun because more children could have died.

Yeah, and if he would have ran an old pickup onto a busy downtown sidewalk he could have plowed several dozen people down. Playing internet psychic is so much fun!

Ex:

Hey Evad, if he had more rounds to shoot at once, at least 6 people would be dead, not four.

The point is, HE RELOADED in order to continue to kill. He didn't need a "high capacity" magazine.

And, like I've said before, almost all of these whackos kill themselves when confronted by someone else with a gun; in this case the police. We need MORE law-abiding armed citizens to stop these nut-jobs.

"It's hard to place your hand over your heart when it's extended waiting for hand out." - veteran55

Other than the first post, INTERLOPERS!

Happy trolling!

You are as crazy as the shooter, but without a gun!

that has to be sarcasm. cause you couldnt be that dumb. Could you?

Glock, yes he is that dumb. Obama got elected again after a miserable first term. It shows you just how many ignorant citizens we have in this country.

Big Al - Please describe "appropriate gun control" that would have prevented "this tragic event." I am interested in knowing what that looks like to you.

Big Al: "If there was appropriate gun control in this country, this tragic event would never have occurred."

That's going too far. Gun control can reduce the frequency of these events, and reduce the number of casualties when a gun nut goes wacko, but we can't eliminate them entirely.

Remember, from yesterday:

There are ~400,000 gun owners with schizophrenia, who own ~3+ million guns.
There are ~900,000 gun owners with bipolar disorder, who own ~9 million guns.
There are ~2,000,000 gun owners with major depressive disorder, with ~23 million guns.

Some of them will be posting here, in 4... 3... 2... 1...

your numbers are more insane than the guy who did the shooting....

where do you get those stats? did you make them up this am.

there is no possible way on earth to get those stats... 1 law says it, HEPPA. I don't care what report Bob in Boston got those wako numbers (stats) from, literally impossible.

your nuts, this could happen anytime. use some common sense, if you have any

better take my bi-polar medicine...before my schizophrenia kicks in...cause i'm depressed...that only own 1 gun...but it's a UZI...

People own guns because of excessive fear. That means paranoia. That covers the other 77 million gun nuts that Bob didn't talk about.

Yahoo,

i own a fair number of firearms and i would say that i am neither paranoid or live with excessive fear. keep spreading your left leaning anti-gun crap, it's only making you look like a fool

Bob in Boston,

source? or just more lies from you?

Just more lies and stupidity from the left.

Are you guys trying to make up crap for us to easily debunk to distract us from your Lord and Savior, Barack Hussein Obama, raising congress' salary for doing such a good job? (And yes, he did it all by himself via Executive Order)

Hey Big-Al, New York already has appropriate gun control. Didn't help much though, from the perspective of the 4 victims who died. But that's because gun control doesn't address the issue of a mentally ill person (or society which appears to be the case in the U.S.). How about looking at this another way. Gun control could help if the male/female gun violence perpetrator ratio was 50/50 or even 60/40 since both men and women in the U.S. have equal access to equal guns. However, the ratio is closer to 96/4. Can you explain, when 96% of all gun violence is committed by men and 4% is committed by women, how gun control actually addresses this? (And that's just general gun violence, broken down by mass shootings where more than one person is injured, it is closer to 99.5% male to 0.5% female ratio).

My excessve fear is that the paper and clay targets I shoot at will magically become evil, animate objects and seek their revenge on me :-O

They're talking to themselves; too funny!

Nets are empty, you failed, America is Great, you're all losers, HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Those of you jumping all over Al are the ones that scare me. It's very rare that a gun advocate or owner makes a reasonable argument for guns, without name calling. Many of you just sound angry and hostile, which makes me afraid that you possess weapons. Who's to say that you won't snap like this guy did and just start shooting. Remember this guy seemed fine to everyone and had no criminal history.

Big Al - Please describe "appropriate gun control" that would have prevented "this tragic event." I am interested in knowing what that looks like to you.

Would some of you advocates of gun control please say exactly what you mean. The statement Big Al makes contributes nothing to having a real conversation. CAN ONE YOU FESS-UP and give specifics instad of a broad brush.

ExYahooUser,

Excessive fear? how about being in tune with reality? Why do people wear seat belts, lock doors, and get immunizations? Do you think the military is in fear? If not a gun, how about a knife? Does that make you fearful. Come on, the reality is that the human race is flawed and there has been war and violence long before guns. I would pose to question that before the invention of gun, most countries were even more lawless and violent.. Open up a history book instead of your mouth. History shows that mankind has always been violent, and no laws have ever changed that nor will they ever change than. People simply suck, and you can not always depend on the government for protection

@ Realistic

Many of you just sound angry and hostile, which makes me afraid that you possess weapons. Who's to say that you won't snap like this guy did and just start shooting.

So I should have my right to own firearms taken away from me because people like you have an irrational fear of inanimate objects (i.e. guns)? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Your odds of getting murdered by a firearm (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You literally have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening. You are far more likely to die from a stroke, heart attack, cancer, or to get killed in a car wreck on your way to work than to get murdered by some random stranger with a gun.

Most gun violence is criminal versus criminal (i.e. gang bangers/drug dealers etc..) & people who get murdered by someone they know (spouse/child/relative/co-worker etc...). A very small percent of people are killed by complete strangers.

Benign interloper yammerings! All day long.

This is NY, Bloomberg will find a way to blame it on Soda's over 32 oz. and they don't want to allow citizens to be armed with firearms.

He was on a sugar high.

Whybother-5916745

Not that I disagree with you, but you REALLY need to educate yourself a little more.

Bloomberg is MAYOR of New York City..

This incident happened in UPSTATE New York.... you know that really big land mass directly north and stretching west of New York City.

The Governor of the STATE of New York is Andrew Cuomo, but he admittedly shares many of the same ridiculous sentiments about firearms as the Mayor does.

I hope that helped clarify New York a little for you.

actually,Bloomberg also is in charge of MAIG,Mayors Against Illegal Guns,an organization of mayors,nationwide who hold his views on disarming legal gun owners.

Do the mayors of Herkimer and Mohawk belong to MAIG? I doubt it.

HA HA HA, why bother is a great choice of names, HA HA HA, you lose!

Sad trolling!

imcurious, did you miss the part of that group name that said ILLEGAL guns?

John Bryant,

If Mayors Against Illegal Guns was just about cracking down on currently illegal guns, I would see them as credible. However, they are about making more guns illegal. The reality is their name is a misnomer. They are in fact Mayors For Illegal Guns. Because what they are for is making legal guns illegal.

Look, I completely understand their concerns about gun related violence. Any American who isn't concerned about it must not be paying any attention. But the problem becomes when they decide that their ideas are the way to approach the problem. For many Americans, their approach is to exercise their Constitutional right to defend themselves. How can anyone really say that MAIG's ideas are better? I suppose if you don't have or want guns for your own defense, you might think their ideas are better, but isn't that being biased by your own opinions?

There are some ideas of MAIG that I agree with. For example, aggressively prosecuting crimes committed with guns. We have laws already on the books, but often we don't use them. But when MAIG gets media attention, they don't even talk about those things, but instead talk about creating new restrictions to make more guns illegal. Most of the time these guys say they are not about banning all guns, but in reality, several key participants have expressed exactly that in the past and have tried to implement laws doing it. As someone who believes in the Constitutional right and very much thinks that Scalia actually got it right, I simply can not trust these guys.

If we want to have debates about Big Gulps, I say go for it and ultimately it may come down to the prevailing opinions. But it is quite a stretch to see a right to buy a Big Gulp as something that is Constitutionally protected. Guns are something different altogether. There is a direct Constitutional right as upheld by the SC. I'm frankly tired about people saying it's only about militias. If you research the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment, you will find otherwise.

I understand that within the Bill of Rights, the SC has ruled that there is some room for "reasonable regulation". Like the tired example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. As I see it, your right to defend yourself with a gun does not permit you to go around shooting anybody you perceive as a threat to you. That is a clearly reasonable restriction that nobody would debate. If we decided to ban crowded theaters to protect people from hearing someone yelling fire, would that be reasonable? No, I don't think anybody would buy into that. But the point is that when you talk about regulating Constitutional rights, you need to walk a fine line. Should we allow "a little" regulated slavery? Should women have equal rights, but with special exceptions? Ironically there are some strong proponents of gun rights who are OK with at least the later. I am a very Progressive person and I believe very strongly in the personal rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. I believe they are all there for a good reason.

When someone commits a violent act with a gun, other than in self defense, they are committing a crime. Most violent gun related crime is really a failure of law enforcement. But if the "fix" is to limit people's rights are we really addressing the failure? We are putting a band aid on another problem.

I don't have the answer for how to improve law enforcement. Personally I think New York's use of "stop and frisk" may seem to work, but in reality is a Constitutional violation. Personally I struggle with New York State's recent gun ban, yet the picture on this topic yesterday shows two cops in full military gear carrying "assault weapons" with high capacity magazines. So the solution to gun violence is to allow law enforcement to maintain overwhelming force against citizens that supersedes the regulation on law abiding citizens.

Who are the victims of nearly all crimes, police or law abiding citizens? Ask yourself why crimes are not commited against police? Ever hear of somebody carjacking a patrol car? I don't think that happens very often. The reason is very simple. The criminal knows that the police officer can defend himself.

I am not anti-government but I am concerned that we have slowly been giving up many of our rights under the justification of keeping us safe. Is our safety solely the responsibility of government or do we have some responsibility ourselves? I see it as a shared responsibility. I don't really think it is a government conspiracy that has them stepping on our rights, but in fact it is mainly driven by the demand of citizens and special interests. When I look at the efforts of Homeland Security in their "war on terror", I really don't see it so much about protecting me, the average citizen, but more about protecting the elite and big money interests.

None of us wants to become the victim of some crime and most surely none of us wants to be killed by some violent nut case with a gun. But how much are we willing to give up to prevent those things? Do we give up some rights we personally don't care about to cut the odds by 10% at best? Could we ever get it to the point where we eliminated the possibility altogether? I don't see it. I doubt that we could cut the odds in half without giving up a lot in the process. So maybe some people end up a bit safer walking around the city with a well armed police department 30 seconds away, but I'm defenseless in my rural home.

I am not saying that there is no middle ground that can be reached. But I am not sure that today we haven't already crossed that middle ground. Statistically speaking, violent crime has declined. I am not sure either that there is an epidemic of mass shootings by crazed people. Part of me says that violence breeds violence and the more we see this stuff in the media, the better the chances are that some other nut case might see it as an appropriate solution to their problems. If we try to deal with the mass killings by crazed people by addressing guns, we are again just putting a band aid on the real problem, crazed people.

I just think we need to be very careful about further restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. I think it is very easy to do when you don't exercise those rights yourself. I am not a women, a minority or gay, but I get concerned when their rights are being infringed. Their rights get me nothing directly, and maybe I could even find an example where their rights have some perceived negative effect on me, but I will support their rights nonetheless, because when we give up someone else's rights, we ultimately weaken our own.

Sounds like he was upset that his favorite bar, "Glory Days" had closed...They should ban Springsteen songs. He should have gone to the Winchester and waited for it all to blow over.

The cops didn't have time to plant it before the media ran the story. Tomorrow it will be an assault rifle with a 100 round drum, and he'll have killed 40 people. Most of them without SS numbers and who won't need to be buried.

Good lord Browning. A Shaun of the Dead reference. Its a wonderful day indeed.

Thats because people were mislead that the Sandy Hook shooting was with an AR-15. All the people killed in that shooting were killed with handguns... but the media barely touched the coroners report that proved it. Our government and the media are lying to control the people. And liberals are ignorant enough to follow along.

buckshot is better for home defense than for deer.

CQC-with a shotgun, it's almost hard to miss. With a AR, the bullet path is only so big, so there is plenty of room to miss.

not to mention overpenatration through walls.

Not to mention what damage a 22 will do does anyone know that answer. You people against guns need to go away. It is the nut behind the gun not the guns.

Who knows why people have that idea ( especially in Aurora, CO)...

Ok guys though i agree with you all in regard to the shotguns and hand guns. Would you please stop mentioning them. If My bennelli gets banned i am going to blame you.LOL you are just giving people ideas.

Deer hunter

Your just so macho. I'll bet those other little kids you hang with just love you.

Grandpa-2986035

Are you talking about my four Grandkids? Yeah they do just love me. Poppie takes them hunting & fishing all the time.

.22s are just as deadly as a shotgun or a .223 or a .45.

Just ask President Reagan. After all, he was assassinated with a .22.

I hope you keep them from getting their hands on them when they shouldn't, kind of like most of us want.

I would think with Grandchildren you would want some gun control.

Grandpa-2986035

Both of my gun safes STAY locked up. How much control should I have?

reagan didnt get assasinated you idiot. it was an ATTEMPT. I diont think reagan even got hit. that ahole brady was doing his job and jumped in front of the bullet. thatshow we got the other piece of crap legislation called the brady bill. and if the shooter had used a better choice of caliber it may have been an assasination. and a dead brady.

Maybe making sure other people around your Grand-kids are controlled.

there are bb guns with more velocity than a .22 long rifle.

kim jong. you were right on one point although I'm sure that was just an accident. A .22 is capable of being a terrible and deadly weapon. Just ask the Mafia. Their favorite assassination weapon has been a .22 pistol for years.

I diont think reagan even got hit

Wow. Yes he did. He was hit once, almost in the heart.

ok for those of you that dont know balasitics a .22 magnum has the same balastics as a 9mm, when it comes to foot pounds. foot pounds is used to measure the force of the bullet as it hits the target. you actually use e=mc squared to find that out. which would be speed of the bullet and the mass or grain of the bullet used.

agreed.

thom, you're such a charming, well educated person. I always look forward to your drivel when there is a story about gun violence. I sure hope you know which end of your pistol to fondle, whenever you are getting your fix of News For DUMB FUX daily.

HA! PRober. you are the typical NBC follower. Fox is fake and NBC is real.

Heres a newsflash, unless youre tuned into BBC everyday, youre getting a slant. FOX leans conservative, NBC, ABC, CNN lean liberal in varying degrees. BUt just remember, NBC is less-entertaining liberal FOX. Just remember ...

Just remember you're arguing about entertainment networks, not news networks.

prober the reality is that england has the harshest gun laws out of the european nations, england also has the highest murder rate and crime rate as well.

Good news.

No cops hurt I hope.

No cops but I feel about the dog and his handler. They become very attached.

NY state is not NYC.

GREAT.... saves the tax payers the expense of a trial and incarceration.

I'd say give the bad guy a medal for that if he wasn't already dead!!

Notfiveo "A guy broke into a home down the street last week...."

Heh.

Yes, a totally not made up story.

Heh heh.

Damn that liberal media! Too bad you don't have a Fox affiliate in your neck of the woods.

It wasn't made up dumass, I spoke with the cops who were looking for a second gun they believe he dropped. BTW he stole the guns from one of the houses, he didn't have one.

LOL<fixated on FOX are you?Maybe NBC and Brian Williams ignoring most relevant news like Holder being held in contempt of Congress and not reporting it while FOX DID report it.Yeah,Liberal Media,only reporting what the White House OK's.

Notfiveo" "BTW he stole the guns from one of the houses, he didn't have one."

Y'see, that's a nice colorful detail to add to your story. How about this one:

You brainwashed liberals just don't understand.

I do, because I was the victim of a home invasion. Eleven Mexican banditos broke into my house with evil intent. They were armed with Uzis, AK47s and AR-15s, and I could tell with a glance that every gun was stolen from the neighboring town's gun buyback program.

They rushed into the living room where I was waiting in my Abrams M-1 tank. Those evil-doers looked into the 120 mm smoothbore barrel and wet their pants.

I told them to leave at once---they pretended to not understand English but I RAISED MY VOICE which I've found always works with foreigners---and they left.

You never saw this on the news because the liberal main-stream media refuses to cover stories of arms used to thwart criminals. Also, I never called 911 because I'm the self-reliant sort, and because I didn't want Obama and Pelosi and the other socialist gay Muslims coming for my tank or my guns.

/irony

If I had made it up numbnuts, the story would have been that my neighbor shot the guy not that the guy shot himself. Use your pea brain not your pee shooter.

@not make up your mind,I thought you were ANTI gun

HAHAHAHA That has to be the best so far today. You are not going to get rid of all the guns folks.

Bad hair day?

I totally agree. Finally someone who gets it. You are a progressive thinker.

Cheap guns? Where? Everything I've seen lately has been rediculously overpriced. Quit bogarting all the cheap guns dickie, share your sources you hoarder!

James Madison also said this:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."

I draw different conclusions than you do from these quotes.

Also, I find it difficult to believe that somebody who has traveled to other countries would make such a statement about "most other countries in the world."

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." If you would bother to read most of the supporting documentation for the 2nd amendment, you would find that it is abundantly clear that the writers meant for every citizen to not only own his own arms, but also that he can carry those arms for personal defense.

I agree that it would be wonderful to live in a world free of guns and other weapons. But as long there are people who are bent on doing harm to others, sadly, we will need to have a means of self-defense.

The 2nd amendment to the constitution is aimed at the collective population, not at individuals. Issues, such as guns for hunting, which I often hear gun advocates shout about, are matters of state law, rather than the U.S. Consitution. I respect your post for being intelligent, whether I agree with it or not. This site is often inundated with the rants of apparent 8th grade dropouts.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." --James Madison, according to Al98765.

Too bad they didn't put the "trained in arms" part into the second amendment. They should have defined "well regulated," too, then perhaps we wouldn't have this ongoing controversy. However, they DID put the part about "the people" into the amendment, and the Supreme Court (the ULTIMATE authority in this country) has interpreted it to mean that "the people" literally have the right to keep and bear arms.

ANY impediment to the free exercise of the second amendment is an infringement. However, as a society, we may agree to some laws limiting the completely free exercise of any right out of desire for a peaceful and structured civilization. Laws, ANY laws, only work in a society because that society ALLOWS them to. Some issues are large enough to destroy that peaceful balance, and I think "gun control" and abortion may be two such issues.

Whokars, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bare arms is an individual right, not collective. And that "collective right" interpretation is dangerous in that it could also be used to take away other individual rights that use the same language, such as the 4th amendment.

I read a post earlier about some countries having mandatory military service. I'm all for that, as long as it means what it says. The Princes of England serve in the armed forces. If they can, so can the sons of members of congress, the administration, business leaders. One other benefit of this is that it would give all citizens a good educations of the uses and possible misuses of firearms. It would also teach something else. That would be to work with others, whether you agree with them or not. If you sweat and suffer alongside each other, you might find you have more in common than you ever dreamed.