Gunman, two others dead in Indiana supermarket shooting

Comments (25)
AnotherAnon wrote:

Sad day indeed. Problems run deep in Elkhart.
Elkhart = One of the hardest hit areas by the current Great Recession and is also horrible for meth usage and labs.

Jan 16, 2014 5:40am EST  --  Report as abuse

Nope we do not have a gun violence problem in this country. /end sarcasm

Sad that we have tragedy after tragedy, yet we can not do anything about it because of one special interest group wants to keep it like the Wild West.

Jan 16, 2014 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse

@jeffRW, of course the gun did not commit the crime moron, but easy access to guns, hand guns in particular, increases the chances of crimes becoming deadly. It really is not that hard to figure out.

This whole ‘guns don’t kill people, people do’ argument is just utter BS. Makes me sick that cause of people like you we are unable to enact sensible legislation that could lower the prevalence of guns in our society and make us ALL safer. The innocent victim’s blood is on your (and every other gun-nut not calling for sensible gun control) hands.

Jan 16, 2014 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
PJBinMI wrote:

Very sad for the families of those killed.

Jan 16, 2014 1:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Panethobo wrote:

It is sad that people like USAPragmatist2 do not see the obvious flaw in their argument. Every victim was unarmed and had no ability to defend themselves. Unarmed people are sheep and peasants by default. If you do not want to be responsible for your own safety, great, that is your choice, not mine. For me, I will happily take of my own and myself. It is not your right to take that away from me and others who live in the real world. Police do not protect you, they protect the state That is why the founders stated emphatically, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Look up the word infringed some time. It means untouchable, no if’s and’s or buts.

Jan 16, 2014 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RyanS197 wrote:

USAPragmatist2, if “easy access” to guns increases the chances of crimes becoming deadly then why in EVERY SINGLE instance “sensible” gun control has been enacted, gun crime has increased dramatically?

In the US, Chicago and Washington DC both experienced huge increases in gun crimes after gun bans were enacted. When the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional a few years back, gun crime dropped. The UK, Australia, and several other countries have experienced the same increase in violent crime after “sensible” gun control was enacted. This is not a coincidence. Pull your head out of the sand. Chicago and Washington DC, as well as the UK and Australia ALL have higher rates of violence than the rest of the US National Average.

Just what do you consider “sensible” gun control anyways?

Jan 16, 2014 1:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DP87 wrote:

USAPragmatist2 : Why don’t you move to Chicago, they have the strictest gun laws allowed by the federal goverment. See how you like it there.

Jan 16, 2014 1:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Apache1036 wrote:

Good shooting to those who killed the bastard. We need to present the dead shooter’s weapon to the NRA with a thank you note for allowing killers to carry guns and kill honest Americans. If there was a war these cowards would be the first to hide.

Jan 16, 2014 2:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
My2Lincolns wrote:

If only the cashier had a gun I’m sure they could have stopped this senseless act…(add sarcasm here)

Jan 16, 2014 2:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RyanS197 wrote:

My2Lincolns…. why would the cashier have had any more difficulty stopping the senseless act than law enforcement officers who arrived later and stopped it? The cashier may have saved a few extra lives. You can choose to rely on waiting for police for your protection, I choose to protect myself. It’s not that hard to realize what the better option is. Have you ever even had to call the police for help? See how long it takes them to respond. Long enough that you’ll be dead.

Jan 16, 2014 3:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RyanS197 wrote:

I can sit here all day and list out potential mass shootings that were stopped short by someone with a conceal carry, and I can also guarantee they never hit the mass media you pay attention to, because it does not support their disarming the public socialist agenda.

Jan 16, 2014 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mylena wrote:

God bless officers!!!! Thanks to them one less piece of crap around. Buying groceries and find death there? No precedents. We need more bad a — es like those officers to fight crime!!!THANK YOU!!!!

Jan 16, 2014 3:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

You do realize what stopped his rampage was a “good guy” with a gun right? We have a violence problem in the country. Guns are just tools. Why don’t you go protest violence in the media that glorifies all of this.

Jan 16, 2014 3:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McGuesterson wrote:

@DP87 – Oh boy, I love it when people use Chicago as an example.

Do you want to talk about the incredibly lax gun laws in Indiana and Iowa that promoting a black market for firearms? See, in Chicago, the thugs either can’t buy guns because of their criminal record or won’t because it’d be traced back to them. So they take a 1-2 hour drive to the state border, where your friendly local black market arms dealer is just more than happy to have you visit. He’ll ask what weapons you need, then just go to the store, buy them, and sell them to you for triple what he paid at the store.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Our gun laws in this nation are only as strong the weakest state law.

I don’t expect a response from you – I’ve never heard a single cogent argue that touches it. There’s no way you can argue fewer gun restrictions in Chicago would help – because, hey, the bad guys are already buying their weapons illegally over the state border. You’d just be making it easier for them. But what about the “good guys”? They’ll all buy guns and make it safer!

If you truly believe that the citizens of Chicago should all be packing heat, you are childishly naive to the realities of inner city life. Drawing a weapon on the street, even in self defense, is an invitation for every gangbanger within earshot to shoot you.

Jan 16, 2014 3:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

If people like USAPragmatist2 had his way, only criminals would have access to guns. He and many people like him believe that those who follow the laws should not have access to guns. Only those who break laws should have access to weapons. Adding more gun laws only affects people who follow laws.

Jan 16, 2014 3:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@Ryans197 and DP87, same old tired arguments from gun-nuts. Did you know that in the few, non-comprehensive, studies done on where the guns committing crimes in cities you mentioned come from it shows that they were ‘legally’ purchased by straw man purchasers in other states/cities with lax gun laws then driven to city in question and sold at tidy profit on black market? Did you also know that the NRA lobby has blocked funding for comprehensive studies to determine the source of these guns? I wonder why? (well i know why, seeing what kind of intellectual honesty you may have)

Here are 2 sensible gun control measures….

1. UNIVERSAL background checks for ANYONE wanting to buy ANY firearm.

2. If you are buying an assault rifle (should be banned) or hand gun (probably should be banned too, but that might be beyond sensible) or any other firearm that can shoot multiple rounds with out reloading (not single shot bolt action rifles or pump action shotguns). Then the background check should consist of, at least, a 30 day waiting period(I think something like 3-6 months be better) and during that two 2 ATF agents will visit your home and interview you to make sure you will be responsible/not hiding anything. Then you can get your weapon of death. This would be paid for by a purchase fee on any type of firearm, with any extra proceeds going directly to a fund studying the causes of gun violence.

So you could still get as many firearms as you wanted, just might have to wait a little bit/be checked out a bit more before going to shoot up your favorite animal/target.

BTW before you, or any other gun nut, goes off on ‘your infringing my 2nd amendment rights’, when the 2nd Amendment was written the most modern firearms where single shot muskets and sidearms that you be lucky to hit the side of a barn with. AS far as I am concerned you can have as many of these types of weapons you want.

Jan 16, 2014 3:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@theNewWorld, you do realize this good guy was a cop, please point out where I have said cops should not be carrying firearms.

It is quite simple, it is FAR too easy to obtain a weapon of death in this country. As another example that retired cop that shot the guy in theater other day ( FL of course), do you really think if he had not been armed anyone would have died? At worst you might have a bloody nose or some hurt feelings and someone spending maybe a month in jail for Battery, but now we have a dead father and a 71 year old man going to prison for the rest of his life (hopefully, never know with ‘Stand your Ground’).

Jan 16, 2014 4:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RyanS197 wrote:

USAPragmatist2, you have been living under a rock for sometime now. UNIVERSAL background checks are already being performed for ANYONE wanting to buy ANY firearm ANYWHERE in the United States. You must pass an NICS check, even at a gun show. I don’t know where you get your information from. Have you ever even purchased a firearm?

And your musket argument is the real tired old argument. Ever heard of the Puckle Gun? It could fire 67 shots more than 300 years ago. The founding fathers did not care what weaponry we had access to, they cared that we have the right to bear firearms to protect ourselves from our own governments becoming to overbearing and tyrannical, there is no hunting and sporting clause. How do you propose we do that with the “sensible” restrictions you desire?

I also find it quite humorous that you point out the good guy was a cop, but so was the bad guy, lol……

Jan 16, 2014 4:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RyanS197 wrote:

USAPragmatist2, the theater incident happened no more than 30 minutes from my house. Sheriff Nocco already informed that the man is being charged with Second Degree Murder and that ‘Stand your Ground’ does not apply to bags of popcorn. BTW, did you happen to see the interview Sheriff Nocco had with Piers Morgan where he totally shut him down and said that guns have saved more families and lives during his career than murders he’s investigated involving them?

Jan 16, 2014 4:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@RyanS197, so you are saying the whole debate we had last year about extending background checks and making them include private sales was all in jest because background checks are already performed, please dude. You may be speaking about the 11 states that do background checks at gunshows, well as many have said this requires a NATIONAL solution or you will simply provide a black market.

And you seriously think you can protect yourself from an ‘overbearing and tyrannical government’ with a few guns? Please, in that case I guess you are calling for being able to purchase artillery/tanks not to mention explosives. You protect yourself at the ballot box.

In the case of FL shooting, the ‘bad guy’ was a retired off duty cop, in other words a normal citizen.

And now I have not purchased a firearm in over 20 years, because I do not live in fear. Plus I am also aware of the fact that you are MUCH more likely to be a victim of gun violence owning a weapon then not. And guess what I have not been in a fight or other physical altercation since 9th grade. Owning a gun is a false sense of security.

BTW I do not watch CNN. They not even humorous, like I watch FOX for humor every now and then, but after 10-15 mins of the BS the humor wears off. And the guy from FL can still use Stand Your Ground in his defense, just like Zimmerman, just because you are charged does not mean you can not use it. It is not for the police to decide but the judge/jury. At least this loser was arrested on the night of incident unlike Zimmerman.

Jan 16, 2014 5:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

“And you seriously think you can protect yourself from an ‘overbearing and tyrannical government’ with a few guns? Please, in that case I guess you are calling for being able to purchase artillery/tanks not to mention explosives. You protect yourself at the ballot box.”

Ever hear of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. You can resist the US government’s forces indefinitely without their level of firearms. Sad but true. But please enlighten me on how the Taliban is able to defeat the US military, and the people of the US have no chance to defend themselves against the government?

Jan 16, 2014 5:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SMG131 wrote:

I am one of the few liberals who (unfortunately maybe) agrees with the “gun-nuts”. The war on drugs is the best example. You can’t smoke this you cant inject that. While i agree that MOST of the drugs currently banned should be banned, the reality is that after years and years and years of telling people narcotics are illegal, if you possess or sell them you will go to jail that hasn’t stopped ANYONE from buying or selling them. The bottom line is if someone wants to do something they will. If someone wants to kill themselves with drugs or otherwise, they will. If they want heroin they will get it, if they want pot they will get it. No laws that have been enacted have prevented any of this. So then everyone says ” oh, well the laws must not be STRICT enough”. So far making laws on drugs stricter has not prevented ANYONE from buying illegal drugs. ANYONE posting a response here who truly believes that by restricting gun sales or making people wait longer or making guns illegal, that people wont find a way to get guns is INSANE. Earlier someone mentioned that when Chicago tightened its laws people just went to another state. So as usual everyone says the solution is a nationwide program to make it more difficult to get guns. Okay. Ill just go to Canada or Mexico (more likely mexico) and buy guns there or they will be illegally smuggled into the country from Mexico (like drugs currently are) and then only drug dealers and crazy people who are willing to break the law will own guns. So now someone who is ALREADY willing to break the law owns all the guns. Them and police officers. So now i have to hope a police officer will be readily available any time i may need to protect myself. I am sure the police wouldn’t abuse their power knowing they are one of the few segments of the population carrying deadly weapons around. All of this doesn’t even take into account the fact that a HUGE segment of our population ALREADY owns a lot of guns so you can really only set rules to restrict people from buying guns from here on out. How does that change anything about whose hands guns are already in? Gun control is a losing battle. Were in America, we own guns and we have every right to and NOTHING is going to change that. Make them illegal, people will still own and carry guns. Why does everybody want to waste their time trying to change laws that won’t make any difference? News flash: If someone wants you dead they will make it happen and they don’t need a gun to do it. “This just in…while guns have been made illegal there has been a huge spike in stabbings all over america. in unrelated news homemade bombs are at an all time high…” Everyone get a life, better yet get a gun!

Jan 16, 2014 6:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@SMG131

I agree, I will bring up the parallel to drugs every so often. The main thing about laws is only law abiding citizens will follow them. So gun laws does not stop gun crimes. If you forbid the manufacturing of guns, and did a collection of all registered guns, the criminals would still have guns, and you would still be able to find illegal firearms like you can now. I don’t have a problem with the cool off period for background checks, and most of the current laws.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Americans to legally own guns. I find it beyond ignorant for anyone to say you are more likely to be a victim of a gun violence if you own a weapon than not. What USAPragmatist2 meant to say is you are more likely to be shot with a gun in your house than if you don’t have a gun in your house. Criminals do not look for gun owners to commit violent gun acts against. It is quite the opposite. You are also more likely to successfully defend yourself from a home invasion if you have a firearm than if you don’t. Of course he will never say that.

And beyond all that, you have the constiutional reasons for owning firearms. We are all supposed to protect America from foreign and domestic threats. If you think an occupation of Vietnam, or Iraq is bad, I don’t think any country or coallition of countries would be ready to occupy the United States.

Jan 16, 2014 7:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
canadiana wrote:

random acts of violence and shootings in public places are as american as apple pie. no surprise here.

Jan 16, 2014 9:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@TheNewWorld, studies have shown that gun owners are more likely to be a victim of gun violence then non gun owners. Just because it does not ‘make sense’ to you does not make it untrue. After all quantum physics does not make sense to most people p, that does not make it any less true.

With regards to drug analogy, you all are right in a world of black and white, but we live in a world of nuanced greys. I know we can never stop ALL gun violence , but we can do things to prevent it. I would compare pot to single action rifles and shotguns, just like coke and the such should be illegal, so should very lethal firearms. While less lethal firearms should be legal along with pot.

Jan 17, 2014 12:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.