Deadly Oregon mall shooting appeared to be lone, random rampage

Comments (60)
auger wrote:

be safe this holiday season

Dec 11, 2012 7:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse

when are they going to ban shopping malls?

Dec 11, 2012 7:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JackWhite wrote:

Bob Costas says we need to ban shopping.

Dec 11, 2012 7:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ernieyeball wrote:

People kill people with guns in this country because they can.

Dec 11, 2012 8:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wilhelm wrote:

zerses, I think the tin foil has slipped down over your eyes…

Dec 11, 2012 8:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Heretic2011 wrote:

It doesn’t sound like the police stopped him. Could there have been a shopped with a concealed weapon? If so, will we hear about it? If so, he/she saved many lives.

Dec 11, 2012 8:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ernieyeball wrote:

@zerses. I suspect God could have saved the victims of your 2nd Amendment hero at this Oregon mall today…but she didn’t.

Dec 11, 2012 8:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
victor672 wrote:

Such a fine generation. Are you proud of what you’ve created, liberals?

Dec 11, 2012 8:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sonorama wrote:

The melodrama is alluring, Zerses, but can you please clarify your argument? It is quite sloppy and incoherent in its current form.

Dec 11, 2012 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ernieyeball wrote:

@vic672…so you are asserting that mall shooters are a liberal creation???

Dec 11, 2012 9:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Another False Flag attack to push the anti-gun agenda. News flash to the powers that be…your False Flags aren’t working anymore! We are AWAKE!

Dec 11, 2012 9:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LisaSimeone wrote:

Gee, another goober with a grudge who’s got a gun? Impossible! That never happens in this country!

Dec 11, 2012 9:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GeorgeBrown wrote:

Why does someone living in a civilized society need a semi-automatic rifle and body armour?

Dec 11, 2012 10:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@GeorgeBrown, Hopefully the need will not come anytime soon in the USA, but it is a Right.

Dec 11, 2012 10:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WiseOldElf wrote:

Well well well! Society continues to decay and fall to pieces (gradually but surely) and the politicians in Washington still continue to talk about “American leadership in the world”
Hilarious!

American society is slipping deeper and deeper into a deep malaise. Broken homes, broken hopes, broken dreams, broken economy. These are not the attributes of a country in any position to give anyone any leadership. It is sad that so many citizens of a supposedly great country feel so much hopelessness that they are driven to these mass shootings! And to those who campaign for gun rights, would you hold on to your beliefs if one of yours falls victim to an act of mindless violence like this one?

Dec 11, 2012 10:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ritz502 wrote:

ok im a concealed carrier at all times i have never shot anybody but believe me if i were in a mall and somebody were to open fire he would leave this earth in a timely manner with no second thought.i carry to protect my family and friends and anyone that may come in dangers way while in my presence with that being said my gun will not hurt anyone until {I} chose for it to.who gives anybody the right to tell me i cant protect my family and friends coworkers and so on ? and george brown were in the hell do you find a civilized society when my wife cant go shopping in the mall without being put in harms way or my kids cant see a movie without being put in harms way? people wake up you take the guns from law biding citizens and we have no way to defend ourselfs from criminals that buy guns from the black market and believe me when i tell you the black market will never end !

Dec 11, 2012 10:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Doesn’t it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you realize that 60% of legal gun sales in the US are done without any sort of background check?

Anyone who says that Americas Gun Laws don’t need to be reformed is just a victim waiting to be killed by a lunatic with a gun.

Dec 11, 2012 11:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WiseOldElf wrote:

@ritz502, I respect your opinion, but why do you think putting more guns in the hands of people like you is the solution? Don’t you see there is a fundamental flaw/anomaly in a society where so many people feel they need to carry a piece to feel safe.

On the need to protect your family, do you follow your wife, kids, and co-workers everywhere they go? I think not as you can only be in one place at any given time. So, good Sir, your being armed isn’t the magic wand that you think it is.

Dec 11, 2012 11:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
deltalogic wrote:

zerses wrote:

“This isn’t about the gun, but whether the person holding that gun is mentally all there, emotionally bereft or even just morally crashed from so much indoctrination.”

1. How a mentally sick or emotinally disturbed person can freely obtain a semi-automatic weapon, come to a public place and just shooting people?
2. Can you name another country in the civilized world where such freedom to kill your own innocent people exists?
3. Why these politicians that allow such freedom to kill innocent people is still in power and not in jail as accomplices in such crimes?
And finally, if somebody has a weapon there are million reasons that can trigger this person to use this weapon – this is a psychology basics.
And if weapons are freely available where is the law enforcement to monitor and prevent such crimes?

Dec 11, 2012 11:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
joeycosta wrote:

Two innocent people just died and all you care about is pointing fingers at “liberals”. WTF, people. Shame on you! I work in a mall, just like this one, and the mere thought of this happening to me or my family while shopping is terrifying. This is exactly what is wrong with this country and this world: we focus on finger pointing, criticizing, and making each other feel diminished. Let’s be part of the solution! 2nd amendment has proven to fail again.

Dec 11, 2012 11:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kiwibird wrote:

Here’s a perspective from someone that doesn’t live in the U.S. as for some reason those in your country don’t see what is causing the problem. You have so many shootings because everyone thinks that it is okay to carry a gun. Until this mentality stops then nothing will change; your children will be shot in schools, innocent people in shopping malls and car parks. Those of us outside your country can see it. Most civilised countries do not think it is acceptable to have their civilian population armed.

Dec 11, 2012 11:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GeorgeBrown wrote:

Owning a gun may be a right as intended by the Founding Fathers, but I don’t think they foresaw a Glock with a thirty-round clip; just squeeze the trigger and a bullet fires, keep squeezing and more and more innocent people drop dead. I don’t think that the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution could have possibly meant for people to walk around with a Glock or a Kalashnikov.

And where were all the brave gun-carrying members of society when Congresswoman Giffords was shot and wounded and a little girl died? Where were all of the brave gun-totin’ folks when that nut with no previous criminal record shot all those people in the theatre in Colorado? Where were all the NRA supporters with their concealed guns when a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York in 2009?

If an armed society is a polite society, how do you explain all of these rude shootings in such a heavily-armed society as the USA?

The United States will have to bring in gun control.

Dec 11, 2012 11:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

If you look at murder rates in the world the US has one of the lowest rates. If you look at murder rates by guns the US has one of the highest % based rates of murder by guns.

What this means is that guns aren’t the problem. Every society has crazies. In many countries 50%+ of the population has a machete or two on hand. I encourage anyone who is against guns to go look at murders committed by knives and machetes….Nasty stuff. Done at a much more frequent rate than in the US.

Sad about these people dying though. Never a good thing.

Dec 12, 2012 12:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Guns don’t kill people, sick people with guns kill people. So lets try to limit the sick people from getting guns. Having everyone running around with a concealed weapon can’t be the only answer here. I mean, didnt we try that in the wild west? Didn’t you NRA folks ever watch gunsmoke?

Dec 12, 2012 12:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlaskanDude wrote:

How responsible is this gernalism?
“High school student Hannah Baggs, 14, told the Oregonian newspaper that she got a close look at the gunman before he entered the mall and opened fire.”
Seriously? You need to name a 14 year old who says she got a close look at the gunman?

Dec 12, 2012 1:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

It is, so far, an immutable historical fact that societies eventually degenerate, and often to rule by tyrants. The right to bear arms is not about safety, it is about the people maintaining the means to fight against, and dissuade cold war style, a tyrannical authority. I have read that the reason for the right to bear arms was once summed by T. Jefferson as, i paraphrase, ‘invariably Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots’

We could discuss if western civilization after WWII somehow escaped the cycle, and the US is fantastically immune to the fate suffered by every other nation from the dawn of society. But Only time will tell. We could also argue whether personal arms would do any good against today’s modern weaponry, but there are fighters around the world doing it.

I agree with you. It is unsafe having guns. But it is also unsafe owning cars, and having a military. I would love nothing more than to live in a world where humans never killed or enslaved one another. A world without tanks, guns, bombs, whips, and other weapons made for killing and subjugating other humans. If that were the case, then absolutely, melt them all down and build a statue to a truly new humanity.

Dec 12, 2012 1:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
redmerlot wrote:

kiwibird:
You say, “You have so many shootings because everyone thinks that it is okay to carry a gun”
I don’t know anybody who thinks it is okay for a teenager to walk around carring a gun, especially not an AR-15 (if that is indeed what it turns out he had, which is the rumour of the moment). All the gun owners and gun fans I know, even if they keep lots of guns, keep them locked up and use them for hobby shooting at a range or for hunting.

The problem with the guns is merely a shift in attitude and discipline. Do a web search for “1969″, “shooting club” and “students”, and you’ll find numerous accounts of a very interesting point: That schools commonly had shooting clubs, and teenagers would go to school on the NYC subways and trains carrying their guns to take to the club classes. We didn’t have a rampage of angry shootings on trains.

No. This guy was a kook. The story is the same every time this happens. The problem is not the guns. It’s a miserable change in attitude, and a decline in discipline, starting with our kids, that is causing this.

Dec 12, 2012 2:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

The NRA wants everyone to carry a concealed shopping mall on their person to prevent tragedies like this one.

Dec 12, 2012 3:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

zerses wrote:
“Whoever did this was not correct in the head.”

The same applies to those who insist that he has a Second Amendment right to bear arms.

ritz502 wrote:
“i carry to protect my family and friends and anyone that may come in dangers way while in my presence ”

Has ever crossed your mind that maybe the people around you don’t want somebody like you ‘protecting’ them? Has it ever occurred to you that the people around you might not want you escalating the problem? Has it ever occurred to you that the people around you might have different ideas about how to handle the situation instead of your opinion that a Wild West gunfight is the best answer?

Has it occurred to you that it is actually very arrogant to assume that you have some sort of right to ‘protect’ people whether they want it or not?

Seriously… if I am ever in that situation I pray that I *don’t* have some one like you anywhere near me. or my family.

Dec 12, 2012 5:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
qmpash wrote:

I’m still waiting for one of those guys from the NRA to gun down one of these guys who are shooting people on the fly. I guess they are still hiding under the table sucking their thumbs.

Dec 12, 2012 6:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Got to love the gun nuts posting ‘defending’ their ownership before one person implies that we need to have a sensible gun control policy.

@qmpash, good point, I have not heard of one of these shooting where a private citizen ended it. Unless, like this one, it is the shooter killing themselves.

A civilized society does not need an armed populace, so I guess the question the gun nuts need to ask themselves is, are their guns so precious that they should stop us from having a civilized society.

Dec 12, 2012 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
jtfane wrote:

BioStudies wrote:

“If you look at murder rates in the world the US has one of the lowest rates.”

Rubbish. Statements like this are either woefully ignorant or intentionally misleading. Comparing murder rates in a developed country like the United States with those in developing countries such as Congo or Kenya which have essentially no rule of law is simply not meaningful for this purpose.

The meaningful exercise is to compare the United States to other developed countries which have a rule of law and functioning police forces and justice systems. When this rational comparison is performed the United States stands alone with an intentional homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. This rate is nearly double that of the next highest significant developed western nation which is Finland with a rate of 2.2. Every other significant developed western nation has an intentional homicide rate less than half that of the United States: Belgium 1.7, Canada 1.6, Greece 1.5, Portugal 1.2, UK 1.2, Ireland 1.2, Netherlands 1.1, France 1.1 and so on down to a low of 0.6 in Norway, one seventh that of the United States.

Intelligent decisions require meaningful, well reasoned information. Whatever your personal motivation, misleading statements like those you’ve made here are counterproductive for the purpose of developing rational, functioning policies. Lives are at stake here, you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Dec 12, 2012 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@McBob08 stop labeling everyone a murderer because they don’t agree with you. Guns are not the problem. The more regulations you put on guns the more the guns fall into the hands of criminals vs legal carriers.

Dec 12, 2012 12:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BioStudies wrote:

@jtfane that’s very ironic considering that you then spout A TONE of misleading information there. You discount every country that has a higher murder rate than the US (more than half the world) and quote only Europe as an example. You completely discount places like Malaysia that have very very strict gun laws and extremely high murder rates yet you promote Europe’s (less strict) gun laws as having a result on murder rates. Who is being ignorant here? Before you get on your high horse about “advanced” societies do realize that Asian cultures have the longest running histories in the world. Many thanks. Come again when you have so real data not just mislabeled liberal BS.

Dec 12, 2012 12:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
youranidiot wrote:

Get over the gun issue folks. If people cant use a gun to kill, then they will use something else. Use your heads.

Dec 12, 2012 12:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChangeWhat wrote:

Great article for all the anti gun liberals to pounce on. Unfortunately for you liberals the fact remains the same, “people kill people”.

The amount of legal gun holders in this country versus the amount of psychotics holding guns do not add up to “banning guns” or changing the right to bear arms. In your unrealistic world their would actually be a lot more of these murders because the only people getting their hands on guns would be criminals.

Fact is if MORE people had guns, and our rights already weren’t infringed upon then someone in the Oregon mall would have been able to take down the maniac.

Example:

1 maniac versus 20 people with guns pointing at him, I think they may not only change his mind about pulling his gun out but it would probably completely deter him from his actions prior to walking in the mall.

@GeorgeBrown
“And where were all the brave gun-carrying members of society when Congresswoman Giffords was shot and wounded and a little girl died? Where were all of the brave gun-totin’ folks when that nut with no previous criminal record shot all those people in the theatre in Colorado? Where were all the NRA supporters with their concealed guns when a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York in 2009?”

If Americans civil rights weren’t infringed upon prior to any of these scenarios then someone with a gun would have surely put the maniacs down before they could murder at will, but instead innocents have to wait until police come.

Stronger background checks I can agree with.

Dec 12, 2012 12:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

What difference did legal firearms make here? It’s not a 2nd amendment issue. Evidently no one was armed but the gunman. Had anyone else been carrying a weapon, there could have been a shootout in the mall and even more might have died or been wounded? Not even the Police in the NYC shootout recently – strange that wasn’t mentioned – were that accurate and several pedestrians were shot dead as I recall.

It seems s little strange, and even crazy; to suggest that civilians will go Christmas shopping as through they were living in Tombstone or Deadwood.

There is something disgusting and very cowardly about the gun-toting crowd that so fears death and yet is willing to inflict it. And yet the political beliefs of the staunch NRA members seem to be automatically in favor of American militarism off shore.

The gunman and the gun owners are very much alike. They both like to own weapons. Many people never own them and are not likely to stage incidents like this, and they know they are mortal and also know that they probably have a far higher chance of being killed in the automobile that got them to the mall. It’s that simple.

The non-carriers are the truly brave people. They know that if accidents happen – they happen.

Dec 12, 2012 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AigaFirst wrote:

So glad that so many people made it out okay. Praying for the people that died, the injured, and their families.

Dec 12, 2012 1:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@paintcan, very good points, but you did get one fact wrong….

In the incident near the Empire State Building in NYC recently, no bystanders where killed by police bullets but several where injured, so your point is valid, just a bit off in the facts.

Dec 12, 2012 1:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
user555 wrote:

@qmpash wrote “I’m still waiting for one of those guys from the NRA to gun down one of these guys who are shooting people on the fly. I guess they are still hiding under the table sucking their thumbs.”

Don’t be lazy and do a quick web search. For example, Shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007. In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.

Who knows what would happen if not for Jeanne. Could have been like Colorado theater shooting. The chirch gunman had lots of ammunition on him.

Not saying that is the answer to every situation, but there is plenty of evidence that rampage shootings can be stopped by armed citizens. And shooters are like bullies — only scary if nobody opposes them.

Dec 12, 2012 2:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@paintcan, usapragmatist, and McBob08,

The second amendment is NOT primarily about toting around a gun for personal safety against fellow citizens. It is about the People maintaining the ability to resist and dissuade a tyrannical Government. Yes, not talked about much, including be the NRA, because of possible unpatriotic interpretations but the right to bear arms is for the People to have the means to take back their Government if needed.

Dec 12, 2012 2:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
maggie33 wrote:

very interesting discussion atleast there isn’t too much name calling like i see in most comments i applaud all of you.

@Abulafiah If i was there there is no guarentee i would shoot immediately or run to the area depends on a number of things but your telling me if someone is shooting randomily 50 feet aways and you know someone or yourself could stop it you wouldn’t? With great power comes great responisibilty….

@paintcan good points, however if everyone has proper gun training and target shooting which you can get easily by taking any number of classes (makes a great gift) instead of spending the money on the 3rd ipad or clothes that will wear out in a year or cellphones that are outdated 6 months later… You could have similiar skills that police officers have without the badge or the attitude they don’t have “shootouts” on a regular basis either. accidents do happen but i like to wear my seatbelt aka gun gives me a fighting chance. Hine sight is 20/20.

Dec 12, 2012 2:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@ConstFundie, yes you are right, the spirit of the 2nd amendment is the ‘right to form a militia’. If you peruse my post history you will see this has been my consistent position. It is far beyond the time to ‘update’ the 2nd amendment to modern times and modern weaponry. When it was written you had musket loaders and single shot ‘pistols’ you would be lucky to hit someone with from 10 yrds away. Now you have AR-15s and semi-automatic pistols with 30 shot clips. It is time to update the 2nd amendment to preserve the right to form a militia, but to also protect us from becoming the gun society that has become the laughing stock of the civilized world.

Dec 12, 2012 2:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
axisofoil2 wrote:

Please preserve my right to form a militia – regardless of whether you see a difference between defending myself against those citizens who would take away my rights by force (armed street thugs) or those citizens who would take away my rights by force (tyrannical government).

Don’t forget to allow me unfettered access to true military-grade equipment (Tanks, fighters, bombers, etc). I don’t mind paying for it, but saying I have the right to form a militia against a tyrannical government, while saying that I don’t have the right to own the materials necessary to do so… well, that’s like saying people have the right to eat ice cream cones but outlawing ice cream.

Dec 12, 2012 3:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sidevalve56 wrote:

Its creepy that people are getting better at getting away…its like learning what to do in case of a tornado…i’m glad but its creepy as hell

Dec 12, 2012 4:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@axisfoil2, What about the rights of the rest of us that are not gun nuts, who do not feel it is necessary to be packing heat to protect ourselves. We, as a country, have had thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of deaths over the years due to the minorities fascination of ‘protecting themselves from a tyrannical government’. This is not the late 1700′s anymore, it is the early 21st century. the founders where smart enough to realize that things change over time, thus they wrote the ability to modify itself into the Constitution. The gun nut wing of the GOP wants to keep us in a 1700′s mentality, while the rest of us want to live in a modern, civilized society.

Dec 12, 2012 4:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

@usapragmatist – Sorry, I didn’t dwell on that story and thought someone was killed in addition to the gunman. I thought I saw a few bodies on the sidewalk. I’m not sure it makes much of a difference, actually. I once saw a kid from Boston’s Chinatown in Tufts Medical Center over 30 years ago, who had been shot through the neck and spinal column. He was paralyzed from the neck down. I’d prefer to get it right between the eyes.

@Constfundie – does that mean the NRA will want the right to own drones? Gun ownership may become an obsolete “right” simply due to increased sophistication of firearms and “anti-insurgent” strategies. Whatever was used elsewhere can be used here. I recognized that over ten years ago. The NRA is a quaint bunch of old time believers actually.

There are other ways to take down a government. Gandhi took down the Raj. How long do you think the government could last if great numbers of people simply didn’t go to work – for a month or more? The Syrians didn’t seem to try, for very long, any number of options before the situation exploded. Gandhi’s resistance was based on committed, non- violent, but very coordinated and countrywide protests. And they knew what they wanted. OWS had no strategy or real goals and was almost jejune. Syrian protests were, very nearly, shoot first and find a government latter. Now they are infested with state killers who serve god knows what. Some think they do Gods’ work and beheading joggers is their new sacrificial goat.

It won’t happen here because the country is largely run on automatic, the population is little more than consumers and the system we live under is really a rather extensive “shopping mall” or office complex.
BTW – revolutions don’t happen when times are bad. They tend to happen when times are good and people are “feeling their oats” and know they can do a better job than the entrenched strata. That is not at all true today. The country is becoming a computer controlled “vessel”. And it is vital to many dependents like me who are ready for retirement and an early death. My options now are meds for depression or any number of maladies I hope I die before I experience, a quick visit to my table saw with a towel wrapped around my arm, or anxiety about how long $600 in SC payments and food stamps will last each month. As I get older, I may not be able to get out of bed much at all. Seniors like me are not the stuff of popular revolt. But I could grease the wheel of a juggernaut if it knew what it wanted to accomplish.

Popular grass roots organization based on the internet will die the moment the internet connection is severed. Any mass work stoppages will be quickly filled with people eager to be employed again. The media is the message and, in many ways, is also the government.

Consider yourself “atomized” and helpless. If you pick up a weapon in public you will be instantly branded a “wacko” and a “terrorist. You may not bite the hands that feed you and never forget that. They can squeeze the tap until the super sized megawealthy burst from their own bloated sense of self importance and there are bodies in the street of the starving or homeless. It isn’t happening so far.

In many ways – we are all Gazans? Do you think the Israelis or the US government are the voice and will of God? Or is the question as inappropriate as asking your automobile or microwave oven for their opinions on the issue of quality of life and moral imperatives?

The answer to me is – I was born into a consumer society and a “nuclear family” (so unimaginative, truncated and powerless) and I will die a consumer. The only question I have left is – will the system try to clone me? I really couldn’t care less and I don’t know why it would bother. I wouldn’t. I think the wealthy will want that option for them and may be why many republicans don’t like “socialized” healthcare. Medical “miracles”, like replacement organs, might not be something money could necessarily buy. One must not cheat the prospects of success?

BTW – I want to call this little essay, “The worms eye perspective on modern life”. Modern burials don’t even let you get to know them anymore either. But a burial plot is sort of pricey.

Dec 12, 2012 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

Looks like a lot of you gun-control freaks purposefully and conveniently overlooked the fact that this punk actually STOLE the gun he used to go on his rampage with…AND, he chose a mall that was a gun-free zone.

So again, let’s review the facts of your twisted logic:

If guns are banned…only the criminals will end up with them.

Dec 12, 2012 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Tony2238 wrote:

Was Jacob Tyler Roberts on prescription psychoactive medications — Prozac, Paxil, Ritalin? All the hysteria about guns is ignoring a more fundamental question. Normal people don’t do what this guy did.

Dec 12, 2012 5:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

qmpash wrote:

I’m still waiting for one of those guys from the NRA to gun down one of these guys who are shooting people on the fly. I guess they are still hiding under the table sucking their thumbs.
Dec 12, 2012 6:31am EST

———————

This mall was a gun-free zone….EINSTEIN!

What part of “no guns allowed” can your tiny
gun-hating brain not comprehend?

Geez o’man you dummies are out in full-farce today.

Dec 12, 2012 5:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jtfane wrote:

@BioStudies wrote:

“You completely discount places like Malaysia that have very very strict gun laws and extremely high murder rates yet you promote Europe’s (less strict) gun laws as having a result on murder rates.”

You are so far gone it’s really not worth my time to further discuss the issue with you but I can’t pass up the opportunity to point out your laughable incompetence. According to the very same study from the UN’s Office on Drugs & Crime, Malaysia has an intentional homicide rate of 2.3 per 100,000, a bit more than half the rate in the United States. Also, I did not use the word “advanced” anywhere in my post, misquoting is truly pathetic, but not surprising. If you’ve at least learned to look things up prior to spouting rash, fabricated accusations and making a fool of yourself then this will have been worth my time, I seriously doubt it though.

@ChangeWhat wrote:

“Stronger background checks I can agree with.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. You seem reasonable enough a person to realize that most of the people bothering to post here are fairly passionate about the issue and many are rather extreme in their views, but that they represent an overall minority. I would venture to guess that the majority of Americans would support simple, reasonable changes to firearm regulations. Stronger background checks, as you advocate, would actually be the second step. The first would be to simply require existing background checks for ALL firearm purchases. This is a huge, gaping hole in the current system. It makes little sense to require licensed dealers to run background checks and then allow any private citizen to resell the firearm without one.

I would have to disagree with your statement that:

“If Americans civil rights weren’t infringed upon prior to any of these scenarios then someone with a gun would have surely put the maniacs down before they could murder at will, but instead innocents have to wait until police come.”

For one, it is pure speculation stated as fact. And, particularly regarding the Gifford shooting, I believe you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate the infringement of anyone’s civil rights regarding firearms since Arizona has some of the most permissive gun control laws in the nation (no permit is required for concealed carry and basically anyone who’s not a convicted felon can buy a gun). The shooter himself had a recorded history of mental instability and was able to legally purchase his gun. Further relaxing the requirements to purchase a firearm in Arizona would certainly contradict your claim to agree with stronger background checks. Also, the shooter was taken down by unarmed civilians and the first armed civilian to arrive at the scene, Joe Zamudio, later admitted to very nearly shooting the wrong person (the man who had retrieved Loughner’s dropped pistol).

Regarding the most recent incident in Oregon I seriously doubt that the prospect of 20 people pointing guns at him would have done much to deter the shooter since he eventually turned his own gun on himself anyway. Of course we’ll never know but I think it just as likely that it would have given this individual all the more reason to keep shooting until he was taken down, undoubtedly a far worse scenario, particularly if he was wearing body armor and on meth (a presumption, but certainly not an outrageous one).

Before putting too much faith in the ability of untrained armed civilians to protect the populace you might want to review some history first. Particular cases that come to mind are the Newhall massacre in California in which two heavily armed criminals were able to kill four CHP officers in a shootout and steal a vehicle from it’s armed owner. The other is the North Hollywood shootout which involved two heavily armed and armored criminals who managed to injure 11 LAPD officers and seven civilians before succumbing to 650 rounds from the officers. The criminals managed to get off about 1,100 rounds before being killed. If it took a few dozen highly trained LAPD officers and SWAT team members 650 rounds to take these two out a few dozen untrained civilians with handguns almost certainly would have made this situation worse, not better.

And BTW @redmerlot, there’s actually been a significant decline in intentional homicide in the U.S. since 1969 (from 7.3 per 100,000 to 4.2) so I’m afraid your theory needs a little work.

Dec 12, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@tony, but a whacked out person can do exponentially more damage with firearms then they could with a knife or their fists. When was the last time you heard of a ‘mass stabbing’?

@CF137, Actually if guns where banned NO ONE would have them. But i do not think one person in this thread has advocated ‘banning’ guns. If they are like me they think we need to modify the 2nd amendment and make it MUCH harder to obtain certain types of firearms.

Dec 12, 2012 5:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

@USAPrag…you must be higher than a kite if you think (A) guns will EVER be banned in the USA and (B) if they ever were…that all the gun owners would just willingly hand them over to “the authorities.”

The 400+ million firearms that are currently in the United States are never going to just “go away”…ever.

Dec 12, 2012 6:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

For those of you blaming the 2nd amendment and gun ownership…it is an absolute fact that if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. And the rest of us will be defenseless. Look no further than Mexico which has perhaps the strictest gun laws on the planet. The root cause of this problem isn’t guns. It’s the people that use them for such heinous purposes. We don’t do nearly enough profiling in this country.

Dec 12, 2012 6:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

This was one confused and scared kid with an AR15 (probably simi-auto) and probably no training. Are all you gun control fanatics really sure you want to go after a bunch of rednecks (most of which are ex-military) really commited to a cause? Like keeping our guns. OK…..

Dec 12, 2012 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

maggie33 wrote:
“your telling me if someone is shooting randomily 50 feet aways and you know someone or yourself could stop it you wouldn’t?”

I am telling you that I wouldn’t trust some nut with a gun to be able to stop it. Largely because…

maggie33 wrote:
“With great power comes great responisibilty….”

… so many of you seem to think that carrying a gun gives you ‘great power’ and makes you something special.

What, exactly, qualifies you (and ritz502) to decide how to handle such a situation? What gives you the authority to say that everyone around you has to accept your decision to start shooting?

This is really what makes me so contemptuous of the gun lobby. They talk about their rights, but what about my right not to be caught in the middle of their gun-fights? They talk about being ‘responsible gun-owners’, yet howl when anybody suggests that they *prove* that they are responsible in the same way that gun-winers in every other advanced country do.

Then, in every thread, you get somebody saying “you must be higher than a kite if you think (A) guns will EVER be banned in the USA and (B) if they ever were…that all the gun owners would just willingly hand them over to “the authorities” or “Are all you gun control fanatics really sure you want to go after a bunch of rednecks (most of which are ex-military) really commited to a cause? ”

Do they sound like responsible gun-owners?

Dec 13, 2012 2:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Abulafiah
“I am telling you that I wouldn’t trust some nut with a gun to be able to stop it.”

Thing is if I was there, 23 years Airborne Infantry and ALWAYS armed I would have stopped it. The courts would have sidded with me. The people being shot would have been greatfull. And you would still be just as stupid. I can prove it. YOU presonally come take my gun away. Now that would be stupid. And my statement, goes to show, the power in the US is STILL with “The People”.

Dec 13, 2012 10:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@bobber1956

You are a good example of why guns should be much more tightly controlled. There are too many people like you on ego trips, imagining they are some sort of vigilante hero.

I don’t care that you had 23 years in the infantry – even assuming that is true. That means nothing other than somebody taught you to operate a gun and follow orders. You think that qualifies you to deal with another gun-nut in a mall, but it doesn’t. Being shown how to operate a gun does *not* mean you are responsible enough to own one, in the same way that passing a driving test does not mean the individual will be a responsible driver.

In fact, the fact that your first answer is “shoot him”, and then you say “YOU personally come and take my gun away. Now that would be stupid.” indicates that you are not responsible enough to own a gun.

Dec 13, 2012 7:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@bobber1956

You are a good example of why guns should be much more tightly controlled. There are too many people like you on ego trips, imagining they are some sort of vigilante hero.

I don’t care that you had 23 years in the infantry – even assuming that is true. That means nothing other than somebody taught you to operate a gun and follow orders. You think that qualifies you to deal with another gun-nut in a mall, but it doesn’t. Being shown how to operate a gun does *not* mean you are responsible enough to own one, in the same way that passing a driving test does not mean the individual will be a responsible driver.

In fact, the fact that your first answer is “shoot him”, and then you say “YOU personally come and take my gun away. Now that would be stupid.” indicates that you are not responsible enough to own a gun.

Dec 13, 2012 7:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

Abdulafiah – The Indians brought down the Raj – slowly and with a long period of transition to be sure – and none of the earliest members of the Congress Party demonstrations were armed. The modern American gun owner is either a coward or a potential bully. All of them are afraid of being injured and horrified at the thought of being killed. And many of them will suck up the myths of fundamentalist religion like it was mother’s milk. They are really only cottony soft Taliban. But actually the Taliban are really brave and face vastly superior firepower. I may not like their philosophy but do appreciate the risks they take. People who sneer at suicide bombers are really terrified and try to mask that terror with the term “they are cowards”. The suicide bombers are single mindedly determined and that is why, in ten years, this country cannot defeat them. One cannot defeat those who do not fear death.

And you and I both know that guns and cars are phallic symbols in this country and not just for the boys. But it only offers a false sense of potency and protection. Bobber1956 doesn’t want you pulling his “pud”. It is a metallic and lethal security blanket for very pampered babies. This society protects them far more than they can ever protect themselves. We are being “house trained” en masses, by our own infrastructure and physical setting.

I have lived in a rural area for almost 30 years and haven’t heard a single story where anyone was successful in shooting off a burglar, rapist of other assailant. It is lunacy to maintain that guns shot in a crowded mall will somehow find their target without taking out bystanders. The assailant will be almost impossible to spot quickly enough. Even the people who could see the hijackers of the PA flight on 9/11 all died by their attempt.

What I have read about locally are people who shot themselves, or a man shot himself when the police responded to his suicide call, or a woman who was shot by her husband, and a woman who killed her boyfriend, a man who killed both of his small children, a Haitian man who shot the women he was boarding with, and a twenty something kid who got shot in the shoulder for some still unexplained shootout in an open field with his associates. I met that kid because he’s still walking around with the bullet is still lodged somewhere in the vicinity of its entry. The grizzliest incident was a kid with drug debts that shot his head off with a shotgun early one winter a few years ago and wasn’t found until months later as a headless corpse (something ate the fragments I suppose, bite size pieces?) while a guy I used to know was walking through the field. It sounds too odd to be true – the totally headless part anyway.

Gun owners do not appreciate the anonymity of modern American life or don’t want to recognize it. The gun owners say they are ready to defend their liberties the way my mother used to collect cookbooks and never actually read any of them. They keep their gun in the SUV and then retreat to the six-pack to really get that warm glow of “invincibility” and “patriotism”. One can buy soul and meaning here on a CD. One guy I knew kept a gun because he grew pot. But he was paranoid most of the time and never left his house.

The military industrial complex gets the devotion of many by proxy and transference.

BTW – If mankind ever goes to space in large numbers, guess what won’t be allowed on the space station? But what weapons would one need when the greatest enemy is a total vacuum and nearly absolute zero? I know – a glue gun and a lot of strong patches.

Dec 14, 2012 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.