BREAKING: 3 killed at Maryland mall

[charlie and algernon]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- Gunfire erupted in a Columbia, Maryland, shopping mall Saturday morning, leaving at least three people dead, according to the Howard County Police Department's Twitter account.

Authorities reported that an active shooter was on the second floor of the sprawling mall in Columbia in Howard County, according to CNN affiliate WBAL. Local scanner reports had authorities requesting multiple mass casualty units.

Images on Twitter reportedly from the scene showed mall employees and customers hiding in a stock room. The mall was on lockdown. Another Twitter image reportedly from the scene showed a bullet-riddled wall.

The Howard County Fire Department on Twitter reported an active shooter situation.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/25/us/maryland-mall-shooting/index.html

[LiberalEsto]

1. Oh cripes, another one

It makes me afraid to leave the house

[yeoman6987]

5. Maryland?

I live in Annapolis which is very close. I am pissed that people cannot read a freaking sign. It says guns prohibited in the mall in Columbia. I have seen it. Plus Maryland passed the thoughest gun laws in the country just last year. What makes this person think they can break the laws of my state? I am pissed at the arrogance of people. Obey the fucking law for Christ Sake!!!!!!!

[Demo_Chris]

6. I get it, but this is not the time. nt

[yeoman6987]

8. Sorry

I should have controlled myself. I am sick of these shootings.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. Why so many shootings - over 20 shot in Baltimore City already now Columbia

Nothing seems to stop these gunmen/women! What do they want? What was the reason for the shootings?

It's a nice Mall I've been there a couple of times.

[yeoman6987]

43. I have too

I agree with you that something has to stop. Of course that is the magic question that does not seem to have a good answer. I have been to the mall a few times myself and agree it is a nice mall.

[CFLDem]

125. It's a nation of 300 million people

With twice as many guns.

I'm shocked it's not higher.

[OrwellwasRight]

69. This is not the time to be pissed that people disobey the law?

Why not?

[hack89]

73. It is not about people or laws, it all about gunz.

Or so I have been told.

[OrwellwasRight]

76. Well, I think it is the time to be pissed no matter what.

If not now, when?

[hack89]

81. Excellent time to be pissed. Nt

[Crunchy Frog]

115. It's time to get acclimated to the new normal.

A few more incidents like this and you'll start to barely notice them.

[Sheldon Cooper]

91. When is the time?

[LiberalEsto]

7. Crazy people aren't stopped by signs, unfortunately

I wonder if things like this eventually will lead to metal detectors at mall entrances.

[former9thward]

48. Crazy people will not be stopped by metal detectors.

If someone is determined to kill people and go out in a blaze of glory they will just shoot the person at the metal detector and go on in.

[otohara]

101. Hope So

otherwise we're going to have a whole lot of empty malls.

[glinda]

11. I think they break the laws to promote gun ownership personally.

They and their ilk want more guns. They want you to be scared.

[Tikki]

19. I totally agree…the thrill isn't just in killing, it is in hopes of getting their way.

To become a hero in their own mind.


Tikki

[glinda]

146. Same reason they are killing wolves, etc....

[Keefer]

13. A sign isn't going to

stop a person intent on causing death and destruction.

[dbackjon]

45. What the fuck are you on DU for?

Go crawl back in your gun nut hole

[mindwalker_i]

62. Why should "the little people" obey the law?

The people with power break the laws all the time. Torture is the first example to come to mind, followed by lying to Congress to start the Iraq war. Then there's the financial industry which lied to lots of people, mostly during the housing boom. I work in the tech industry in SI valley, and I used to work for one of the companies that conspired to keep wages low, and although I applaud the people who are bringing this to light, I wonder whether they'll have trouble getting jobs later, and I wonder whether the punishment for this conspiracy will just be a slap on the wrist, if even that.

Then there's the spying by the NSA. Even here I see people use the justification that it's useful. Gah!

Given all this, why should people care about the laws? Oh gee whiz, they're not supposed to speed? They're not supposed to bring a gun here? The real danger I see from letting the high-and-mighty ignore laws is that it sets a standard for everyone else. I'm not saying "little" people ignore the laws as a way to protest the government or rich, just that respect for the law is diminished. In fact, given that rich people often get rich(er) by breaking the law, it's immoral to FOLLOW the law.

After insurance canceled people's policies when they got sick, causing a lot of people to die after they had given lots of money to insurance, what's the big deal about 3 people killed in a mall?

[RKP5637]

64. Well said! Many horrific travesties go on each day by the monied and

powerful, often for their profit, yet they get a free pass, and millions are affected by their actions. And seldom are they held accountable for their actions.

[mindwalker_i]

82. And by playing accoring to the rules

We are endorsing the system that allows it.

[OrwellwasRight]

72. It's immoral to follow the law?

You're right. Two wrongs have always made a right. That's what made Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. so successful, by driving out hate with hate. Thank you for your ethical insight. Not.

[mindwalker_i]

80. By following the law

You are perpetuating a system where the powerful DON'T follow the law and nothing is done - nothing is expected to be done. By your actions, you are stating that the situation is okay. When the bank forecloses on you without proper documentation or possibly without even owning your loan, and the police enforce the foreclosure, you have tacitly given your approval. When the NSA spies on you, you have given your approval. By following the law, you are perpetuating a system and helping it to work.

The alternative is to not follow the law and to reject the system. If many people do this, things will become unpleasant, but that is precisely what NEEDS TO HAPPEN! The statement needs to be made that either everyone follows the rules we have, or no-one does. It'll be unpleasant, and we, as a society, can either fix it or this country can go the way of so many other countries - they get destroyed and a new country is born.

If a company follows the law, they won't make as much profit as other companies and their shareholders have a legitimate claim that the company isn't maximizing their profits. The TPP effectively codifies this: if laws get in the way of profits, then those laws can be nullified. If the laws were put in place to prevent companies from killing you, possibly by poising your water, or by making you work 20 hours a day (without overtime or vacation - those also get in the way of profits), then you lose. Your life is second to the money a company makes.

Granted, I'm also guilty of perpetuating this system. I don't have the inclination to spend the time to figure out how to win at this system and avoid punishment, and by my laziness I'm, in effect, screwing myself.

[OrwellwasRight]

86. You are 100% wrong.

You are not perpetuating a system "where the powerful DON'T follow the law and nothing is done" by following the law. What perpetuates the system is apathy. It's those who see injustice and do nothing that perpetuate the system. Or worse, those who see injustice and repeat it. By modeling your behavior on immoral behavior, YOU are perpetuating lawbreaking and immorality. You are modeling bad behavior and disrespect for others and the law for your kids, friends, and neighbors. You are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The way to change the system is to fight the system. Not to be a loser who steals because he sees others steal and he can't see any other option for himself.

And the TPP has nothing to do with this. If you don't want the TPP, fight it. Don't sit on your ass and decide to break the law instead.

I think the morals you advocate in your post are loathsome.

[mindwalker_i]

104. The TPP has everything to do with this post

"What perpetuates the system is apathy."

There's definitely some truth to this, but it's closely related to what I said earlier. If, for example, the banks go around and steal people's houses, using forged documents and getting the police to help them enforce theft of homes, they have done a great wrong. In many cases, nothing was done about this. I don't have specific examples, but I'm sure they can be found easily enough. In addition, the government architected or at least agreed to a settlement that effectively erased the wrong-doing, at least in legal terms, cutting off the recourse that people had to address the wrongs done to them. Apathy by the people, deciding there was just nothing they could do about it, perpetuates the system whereby they get screwed over. Specifically, the money they earned by working for a company (or themselves), is stolen by the banks and by not doing anything about it, the people agree to that "theft".

When the financial system collapsed, the government bailed it out, primarily for practical reasons. When the government, particularly Republicans, fought any regulation to prevent it from happening again, they were effectively endorsing the theft of our money, paid in taxes, by the financial institution because they support having the "meltdown" and subsequent bailout with our money happening again.

If you, as an individual person, allow this to keep happening, you are endorsing the system by which you are repeatedly robbed. If you vote for people expecting that they will stop this from happening, and they don't stop it from happening over and over, you are being "apathetic," and supporting the system. So if voting doesn't help it, what is the next step? Is it moral for you to just keep voting and hoping for something to change, while following all the rules of society, a.k.a. laws?

As for the mall shooting, it's immoral to shoot and kill people, but I can NOT say that it's immoral to break laws when other groups or corporations are allowed to break laws (effectively, there are no laws that apply to corporations then). Being apathetic and not doing something to change the situation is, at best, participating in the robbery of yourself, but it's also participating in the robbery of everybody else.

This idea needs refinement. Stealing from your neighbor is obviously not the solution (assuming your neighbor is an individual). However, following the rules while companies systematically do not, and are rewarded for not following the rules, is immoral. If the TPP passes and companies are allowed to change the rules to protect their profits, at the expense of people, continuing to follow the rules (abridged by corporations) is highly immoral, similar to participating in your own rape.

[OrwellwasRight]

112. I as an individual person am not allowing any of this to keep happening.

I am fighting it everyday. All day long.

Don't put your apathy on me, thank you very much. And I still find your morals loathsome. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

And quit bringing the TPP into this. If you want to fight bad trade policy, do so. I do. But don't use it as an excuse to break the law.

[mindwalker_i]

117. I will NOT stop bringing the TPP into this

It's highly relevant to the point I'm making.

That point, specifically, is that having laws against something is not sufficient reason to condemn an action, when those laws are systematically selectively applied. Also, when the laws are being made to benefit one group at the detriment of another group - the TPP laws will benefit corporations at the expense of regular people - there is no longer a moral reason to follow those laws. Furthermore, continuing to play by the rules while the rules are not being changed to be more fair, and are in fact being changed to be more UNfair, makes it immoral to keep following them. That perpetuates and supports an unfair system.

I made no comments about what you, personally are doing. I merely argued the point that you seem to be making is immoral. You may find my moral "loathsome" (which is personal) and either you don't understand the point I'm making or you think it's right to support an unfair system or the unfair application of a system. Then you're just one more person I have to fight in order to change said unfair system.

[OrwellwasRight]

120. The TPP won't change the fact

that advocating ignoring the laws won't fix anything and is a horrible model to set for others.

The TPP won't make you or anyone more or less moral or ethical than they already are.

And advocating murder or theft or assault whatever it is you are advocating when you say we should all break the law because corporations do it too won't change the system.

By your own admission, you are not doing anything to change the system. You are simply advocating breaking laws. So know you won't be fighting me when you try to change the system because:

a) you won't be "fighting the system"; and
b) I am already fighting to change the system (which you would know if you actually read my prior posts--see posts 86 and 112).

If you think I am immoral for trying to fight our system, you are actually advocating the status quo. Nice!

[mindwalker_i]

126. Let me take each of these in turn...

"that advocating ignoring the laws won't fix anything and is a horrible model to set for others."

This is at the heart of my argument. If laws are unjust, one should not follow them. It's at the heart of why we broke away from Brittian. The deeper point is that, if laws are applied selectively, the moral reason to follow laws disappears. From the original article, it is immoral for that person to kill three people, but the idea that not following laws is, by itself, immoral is no longer true. Laws are moral when they benefit people equally - when it's not ok for anyone, regardless of race, social status, etc. to kill another person, that is a moral law. However, when it's not ok for you to steal from a bank, but it IS ok for the bank to steal from you (and this is the situation we find ourselves in now), the law is not moral. Then, the law is like medieval laws where aristocrats got high justice but commoners got low justice.

When should someone not follow the law? Arguably people should rob banks. If the government refuses to fix the situation and makes more unfair laws, the moral thing to do is to overthrow the government.


"And advocating murder or theft or assault whatever"

I did not do that. This came from your ass, it came directly from your ass, it did not pass go, it did not collect $200 (adjusted for inflation).

What I would advocate is that, if the government does not fix the inequalities of how the laws are applied and instead, makes the laws more inequal (as with the TPP), we are morally obligated to overthrow the government. These things tend to be messy, have a lot of collateral damage (kind of like our recent wars, which further erodes the moral standing of our system of laws), but to continue to only take ineffective steps is immoral.


"By your own admission" and a)

True. I'm not doing anywhere near what I should be doing.

b)

I'll take you at your word that you are fighting to change things. Good for you, you're a better person than me. However, I'm not arguing your actions, I'm arguing the position you seem to be taking, which is that it is moral to only work inside the system and is immoral to break laws, regardless of the laws or their application. There is historical precedent for this argument: the aforementioned split from Britian, and more recently, fighting against slavery in this country - which was legal, but immoral.


"If you think I am immoral for trying to fight our system, you are actually advocating the status quo. Nice!"

Again, this came from your ass, it came directly from your ass, it did not pass go, it did not collect 200 (inflation adjusted) dollars.

If you would like to refute this point, please highlight anywhere that I said you were immoral for fighting the system. If anything, I argued that (in general, not even applied to anything you did) one should not limit themselves only to legal means in order to fight the system.

[OrwellwasRight]

135. I will.

To quote you:

Then you're just one more person I have to fight in order to change said unfair system.

To quote what I had said in the prior post (112):

I as an individual person am not allowing any of this to keep happening.

I am fighting it everyday. All day long.

So I said I am fighting the system and you said you are fighting me. Duh!

Also, you did not specify which laws you were advocating breaking. It pretty much seemed like all of them so it was totally appropriate for "my ass" to speculate on which ones you were referring to. To quote you:

Why should "the little people" obey the law?

The people with power break the laws all the time. Torture is the first example to come to mind, followed by lying to Congress to start the Iraq war. Then there's the financial industry which lied to lots of people, mostly during the housing boom. I work in the tech industry in SI valley, and I used to work for one of the companies that conspired to keep wages low, and although I applaud the people who are bringing this to light, I wonder whether they'll have trouble getting jobs later, and I wonder whether the punishment for this conspiracy will just be a slap on the wrist, if even that.

Then there's the spying by the NSA. Even here I see people use the justification that it's useful. Gah!

Given all this, why should people care about the laws? Oh gee whiz, they're not supposed to speed? They're not supposed to bring a gun here?

So basically, if you weren't advocating breaking all the laws, which ones were you advocating breaking? Just those on torture and lying to Congress and spying and conspiracy and fraud? And frankly above (in the post I am currently responding to), you even say "Arguably people should rob banks." Robbery is worse than theft (robbery is considered a crime of violence; theft is not). And yet you're all up in arms because I listed that as a law you were appearing to advocate breaking? I'm not falling for your outrage.

Also, just to be clear, I never argued that "one should limit themselves only to legal means in order to fight the system." My point is and was that your comment that "Why should "the little people" obey the law?" at all was asinine. Randomly breaking the law doesn't make the system better. It makes life worse for everyone. And I stand by my judgment that saying "the little people shouldn't obey the law" is advocating a morally loathsome position.

Now, if people want to occupy a certain space or get arrested for an unpermitted protest or being part of a wildcat strike or secondary boycott, then they should do so, by all means. But these are not the acts of people who ask themselves "why should the little people obey the law." They are deliberate choices to protest and fight the system. One does not equal the other.

Only in this most recent post do you even pretend that your first post had any relation to fighting the system or engaging in any kind of organized, thoughtful, collective action.

In any case, enjoy breaking whichever random laws you choose to break. And as you do so, just remember that you will be modeling disrespect for the rule of law you now seem to care about. I'll keep doing what I am doing as I would rather work to change unjust laws than take steps to make society even more lawless. I don't enjoy living in a lawless world.

It was extremely unpleasant having this interaction with you. Bye!

[mindwalker_i]

139. "To quote you"

Then you're just one more person I have to fight in order to change said unfair system.

I was referring to what you seemed to be saying, which was that we should only work within the system of laws. You seemed to be indicating that breaking laws was always bad and would resist anyone who did so. Hence, if I were to break laws in order to fight the system, I would also be fighting you.

Also, you did not specify which laws you were advocating breaking. It pretty much seemed like all of them so it was totally appropriate for "my ass" to speculate on which ones you were referring to.

Fair enough. I did comment that my idea or point needed refinement. That refinement is specifically this: first of all, with the system of laws applied unfairly, and with it also being changed to be more unfair (see TPP), it doesn't make sense to say that something is bad because it's not legal. That connection has been broken. Second, my point needs clarification in that, although it's no longer possible to make a case that one "shouldn't" disobey the law on moral grounds (the case can be made that it will get you into trouble), the times where some IS morally obligated to break the law are where the law is specifically designed to be unfair - to favor corporations' profits over people. Now, if the system of laws continues to become more unfair, overthrouw of the government is REQUIRED, which necessarily means breaking a lot of laws. Application will certainly be uneven and not well targeted, which is unfortunate but leaving the system in place is more so.


From this:

Also, just to be clear, I never argued that "one should limit themselves only to legal means in order to fight the system." My point is and was that your comment that "Why should "the little people" obey the law?" at all was asinine.

I'm arguing that, if corporations break the law, get ahead, and are not punished when found out, why should "the little people" limit themselves to get ahead only by legal means? Furthermore, when politicians alter laws in favor of corporations (that give contributions to said politicians' campaigns, so the changes to laws are benefiting those politicians and other people's expense), the case for not obeying the law by the little people becomes stronger. At some point, it become morally imperative for people to break the law in order to get ahead (or to make ends meet, save their families, etc.) and doing so in a way that harms those politicians or corporations is praiseworthy. Do you see the two levels here? One is, if some people don't follow the law, why should you, and the other is, if some don't follow the law, break it in such a way as to hurt them (the politicians or corporations in this example).

And as you do so, just remember that you will be modeling disrespect for the rule of law you now seem to care about.

I care about the law in that having all of us follow it is good for society, in that people prosper, we are able to lead more pleasant lives, we grow and discover things, etc. However, if the law is allowed to be broken by certain people, that is damaging to society. Not following the law may be the best way to bring attention to the problem and also to make sure that it's understood that we, collectively, are going to not live by the rules in order to make it unpleasant to those already not living by the rules.

It was extremely unpleasant having this interaction with you.

Why is that? My first guess would be that your arguments were challenged, forcing you to explain them more clearly. I did comment that you pulled a few things out of your ass, but that came late in the thread so I don't think it was the main factor. You did think that I was challenging your actions, whereas I was only challenging what seemed to be your point of view (that has been clarified to a good degree, and I have also clarified my point of view as well), which I think is the point of having discussions. If you found that unpleasant, I'm sorry, but that's how these things work. By extension, that's how the world works - it isn't a utopia, and I'm glad of that because what most people seem to think of as a utopia would be boring to start with, and not truly living.

If you want me to, I'll find a kitten picture and post it.

[ZombieHorde]

78. Gun Free Zones, and their ilk,

are meant to stop accidental shootings, not mass shootings.

[shireen]

138. i don't understand

how no one notices someone carrying a shotgun into the mall.

[onenote]

156. Sadly, shotguns are much more easily concealed than most people realize

Shotguns come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Some are actually pretty small. Don't know the size of the one used in the Columbia Mall shootings, but it wouldn't surprise me if could easily fit into a sports bag or be concealed under a typical winter coat.

[magical thyme]

140. I doubt somebody who isn't concerned about the laws regarding murder

are going to be concerned about guns being prohibited in the mall.

[LiberalEsto]

2. From WRC-NBC4 DC

"Police are on the scene of a shooting in the Columbia Mall in Howard County, Md.

Little information is available from the scene at this time, but police have confirmed that they are working on an "active shooter" situation.

A statement from the mall said only that "Mall is closed. Believe that the situation may be over, but the mall is closed."

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Columbia-Mall-shooting-Police-Active-Shooter-in-Columbia-Mall--241962941.html

[NutmegYankee]

3. I'm starting to wonder if this isn't copy cat actions based on media attention.

Every nut who wants notoriety knows they'll be the subject of days of media attention.

[valerief]

10. Maybe. The cynic in me sees these as possible planned diversions to

keep other stuff out of the headlines. Just what and by whom? Can't say. But if anyone can mind-control a person who has access to guns, it's some U.S. intelligence agency/military.

I remember when the killing season occurred in the 90s. You know, the NAFTA decade. Smells like another killing season again.

Okay, let the flaming begin.

[NutmegYankee]

15. I just hate how the media focuses on the killer.

I'd rather their name never get mentioned again. Focus on the victims and forget the killers name. I've lost two people I knew in large mass shootings. And yet no one would know them if I listed their names.

[Eleanors38]

54. I quite agree. Ours is a celebrity culture, and Anything qualifies.

And I mean anything. And once you're in, you're in for life. MSM scrambles for ratings and loves to stir the pot. And much of America likes to be stirred.

[brooklynite]

33. So you're blaming President Obama...classy

[ForgoTheConsequence]

53. Alex Jones bullshit.

Disgusting nonsense.

[red dog 1]

58. "Possible planned diversions to keep the other stuff out of the headlines"?

"Okay, let the flaming begin"?

What the hell does that mean?

Did you mean "Let the BLAMING begin"?

Your conspiracy theory is pure bullshit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. That's "aliens are in charge of the government" crazy you're peddling there

not to mention extremely offensive on a Democratic site. You're suggesting US intelligence/military, controlled by President Obama, are using mind control to divert form something like NAFTA - ie the TPP or TTIP, being negotiated by the Democratic government.

I don't know whether to laugh at you or swear at you. Either way, you ought to delete it if you have any self-respect.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

110. Why would they?

I reported it and it turns out most du'ers are perfectly fine with blaming Obama and the government for this shooting. It seems the non conspiracy theorists are in the minority.

[2naSalit]

4. It certainly

ilustrates just how many unstable individuals there are, whether acting out in a temporary state of despair or long-term illness a gun in every hand is not a good thing.

[billh58]

14. But aren't you

comforted by the fact that the overall homicide rate in the USA is going down? Last year we only experienced 11,078 gun homicides out of a total of 16,259 homicides in this country. The logic goes something like: if they didn't have a gun, they would just use a knife, or a fork, or a swimming pool, or an automobile, or their bare hands.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

According to the Second Amendment absolutists, that's just a drop in the proverbial bucket, and the price we must pay for Liberty, Freedom, and My Rights. The fact that the USA has 20 times more gun-related killings than our closest competitor is in line with the goals of ALEC and the Koch Brothers (NRA puppeteers) to make the USA number one in all things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

Question: Who are the real "unstable individuals?" The ones with the guns, or the ones who irresponsibly enabled their acquisition of a gun?

[2naSalit]

35. Actually

No, not comforted at all and was not making a differentiation statement regarding the ease of acquisition of guns. I don't argue that those who enable the users in acquisition are probably equally or perhaps more unstable, but that wasn't what I was focused on at the time I posted my comment.

[billh58]

41. I should have

used the sarcasm tag...

[charlie and algernon]

9. CNN now saying 3 are dead

[hrmjustin]

12. Msnbc says 3 dead.

[calimary]

16. Hey America, HAD ENOUGH YET?????

[LiberalEsto]

17. "The suspect was found dead near a gun an ammunition, police said."

msnbc

"The Howard County Police added that one of the victims was located near a gun and ammunition. " msnbc

[RKP5637]

18. Damn, this is getting to be a daily event. Yet another WTF. I often wonder if this

is atypical or getting to be the new norm. Often when I'm out I sometimes wonder, is there going to be an incident while I'm there. I used to think of schools as safe havens for the kids, but not now. I do wonder what is enabling these jerks. There is so much nastiness and rage in the US. Acts of kindness seem to be getting rare.

[spinbaby]

55. No place is safe

School shootings on weekdays, mall shootings on weekends, just another day in America.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Just another day in America.

Nothing to worry about though. The 2nd Amendment is still completely safe.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. the practical question that remains unanswered is,

How are we to tell the difference from an "Open Carry Activist" from a crazed gunman en route?

[Bjorn Against]

23. I think we need to assume the open carry activist is a crazed gunman

If some gun nut wants to look like a tough guy toting their gun around in public people have every right to assume they are preparing to murder someone. We should not have to wait until they start shooting to determine that anyone who would walk around flaunting a potential murder weapon is a threat.

[GoneOffShore]

29. Excellent comment. There is no way to tell.

Well, there is but . . . . .

No, not going there.

[abq e streeter]

22. Awful beyond words ...AGAIN. This one hits home too

I live very far from there but visited a childhood friend who has lived in Columbia for many years now, in 2012, and we bicycled all around that lovely town. I feel so conflicted and selfish hoping and praying that he and his family and friends are safe and sound all the while knowing that someone's are not.

[Divernan]

25. In order to guarantee a well-regulated militia and countless homicidal maniacs?

No, the second amendment does not include those last four words. It simply states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What does "well regulated" mean? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

I suggest a "well-regulated militia" would be more in the form of the Britsh Home Guard, back in World War 2. You'd have a standard weapons type, have training and drilling. be registered (including your weapons and their accessories), and most important of all, be evaluated as to your mental fitness to serve.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Maybe it needs to be rewritten to encompass the homicidal maniacs

that the framers clearly intended to include.

[durablend]

26. The expected NRA response...

"If EVERYONE there had a GUN, this never would've happened!"

[bluestateguy]

27. Maryland has very strict gun laws

So lets just all get our facts right once the inevitable politicization begins.

[tabasco]

31. LOL.

Nowhere in the US has "very strict gun laws."

[Bjorn Against]

37. This is true, some states may have some common sense regulation but no state is very restrictive

It is easy to legally obtain a gun in even the states with the toughest gun laws because even the toughest gun laws in America are really not very tough.

[bluestateguy]

122. And while MD has very strict laws

It is easy to just head to VA or WV and buy a gun where the laws are more lenient.

We just need to wait for the facts to come out.

[Bjorn Against]

124. It is true that VA and WV have more lenient laws but it is easy to legally get guns in all 50 states

They may be strict in comparision to other states, but it is still quite easy to legally obtain a gun in Maryland. This has been a fact since long before this shooting took place so we really don't need to wait for new facts to come out to know it is easy to get a gun in Maryland.

[jpak]

28. I hope no Holy Guns were hurt

[tabasco]

30. The well-regulated militia strikes again!

Where next?

[LiberalElite]

32. If this keeps up

there'll be enough for a calendar - call it "365 days of Schools, Malls, Parking Lots and Homes - Life in the NRA's America"

[barbtries]

97. that would make

a good lobbying tool, actually.

[godevil10]

34. We must start a national discourse

on violence in our society, putting everything and I mean everything, on the table and that means you too Hollywood, gamers, guns, TV, music industry, schools and parents, sports, etc etc. If that is too tough for us to do then we have to live with the results. We must resolve to do this just as we did to win WWII, I feel it is that important.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. Other countries seem to be able to deal with guns the USA cannot

It's a mindset. How many shootings are there in other countries compared to ours? How much is being done about illegal trafficking?

[billh58]

46. The right-wing NRA

mantra is to blame gun violence on anything BUT guns: violent games, mental incompetency, poverty, gangs, lax enforcement, ad nauseam. Isn't it amazing, however, that all other industrialized countries have the same per capita percentage of gamers, crazies, poor people as the USA. The only real difference is that the other countries have either fewer guns, or very strict gun regulations, or both.

The other thing that the other "civilized" countries don't have is a right-wing, terrorist organization which buys and sells politicians at all levels of their local and federal government for blood money from gun manufacturers.

[red dog 1]

65. Well stated!

IMO, the NRA IS a "terrorist organization".

90 percent of Americans support universal background checks.

Even a majority of NRA members support universal background checks (74 percent)
But NRA leadership is opposed to universal background checks.
(Politifact.com. 4/9/2013)..Sorry, couldn't find working link, but it's easily Googled:
"Lee Leffingwell says American NRA members widely support background checks for all gun sales"

[cilla4progress]

66. I'm sorry..

but until one of their own is taken down by senseless violence, I don't the NRA will EVER accept limits.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

137. The right wing terrorist organization mus tbe stopped

[NYC_SKP]

145. Bullshit.

No other country teaches violence like our, no other country spends anywhere near what we spend on war and death, in fact all other countries COMBINED almost match what we spend.

People who blame the gun perpetuate the problem by distraction, and increase sales and proliferation of guns by threatening bans.

They are as big a part of the problem as is the greedy NRA.

[godevil10]

92. We cannot just put guns on the table.

That will never work or be agreed to in our society! All the other thngs I mentioned must be on the table as well and if we are not even able to talk about our violence in an all includive manner then we are just pissing in the prop wash, so to speak.

[Bjorn Against]

42. While we can talk about everything, we can not pretend that all factors are equal

The fact is guns are the actual weapon that causes the death, they need to be a much bigger focus than any focus we place on the music industry. I have no problem talking about violence in the media, but I don't think that discussion should distract us from the fact that every single shooting death involves a gun and guns need to be the primary focus of any discussion on gun violence.

[godevil10]

95. Yes and behind those guns that murder in this fashion is

a crazed, violent individual and it is the cause of that violent nature that we must delve into, not just where he/ she got a gun or a bullet.

[Bjorn Against]

102. That violent person killed because they got their hands on a gun

There were violent people around long before violent movies or video games, but guns have made it far easier for those people to kill. No one that I am aware of has ever been killed by a video game on a rap song, tens of thousands are killed every year by guns. Guns are a far bigger problem than violent media is and they need to be a primary focus on any debate about violence in America.

[godevil10]

105. That violent person killed because

he/she made a conscience decision to do so. As long as we are unwilling to admit our bias regarding guns and address the comprehensive conditions that brought that person to the point of wanting to kill then ten years from now we will be right where we are now. There can be no meaningful action taken, and thus far there has not been any.

[billh58]

109. Okay, let's assume that

we address "the comprehensive conditions that brought that person to the point of wanting to kill" and determine that the best course of action would be to have all gun purchasers undergo a mental health evaluation. Would you be comfortable with that remedy?

Or, how about a national database that tracks all mental health issues, criminal activity, and other forms of anti-social behavior, and mandatory universal background checks before the purchase of a gun? Would that be a solution?

Or, are you proposing that we address all of the underlying social ills which account for most crime in this country, and just allow gun violence to continue unchecked as a cost of living in the land of the free?

ALEC, and the Koch Brothers, through their right-wing terrorist organization (the NRA) also claim that there is absolutely nothing that we, as American Democrats, can do to address the gun violence epidemic in this nation. Millions of Democrats disagree.

[godevil10]

148. Bill, I for one would be willing to discuss any and all possible remedies.

As long as both sides of this issue remain entrenched, intractable, unblinking, engaged in name calling, rather than discussion, or willing to discuss all the possible reasons and causes of our violent nature we will continue to be mired down in the blood of innocence.

This intractability has lead our government into the sorry state that we now find it in, wouldn't you agree?

[billh58]

152. You are, of course, correct

and there are no simple answers to fixing the "sorry state" of this nation. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the best that we as individuals can do, is to keep our own backyards clean and provide aid and comfort to those that we can.

I know that I will never be responsible for shooting someone, and due to my location (Hawaii) it's highly probable that I will never be shot. I doubt seriously that I will ever travel to the Mainland again, and by all indications that is a good thing.

Take care, and be well.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Yes. We must obfuscate the gun violence issue

by throwing in games and TV and music and sports and parenting and the kitchen sink. It is very important that actual guns get lost in the minutiae of the discussion. That's how we won WWII after all.

[godevil10]

98. Look, I don't believe for one minute

that we can have any meaningful discussion with the gun culture without those discssions talking about the very nature of violence in our society and how it got that way. Just cocentrsting on guns has got us nowhere, nor will it.

Call it what ever in the heck you want to

[Crunchy Frog]

100. Okay. Obfuscation.

[godevil10]

106. Yes by all means let's not spend any

intellectual energy presenting argument when lables work just as well (standard old debate trick when your argument is weak). This has got us a lot done so far.

[brooklynite]

36. MSNBC: One dead person found near gun, ammunition

[Lint Head]

38. The strict gun law in Maryland means nothing when you have surrounding states that

basically issue guns to fetuses. They don't check you gun at the State border. This ridiculous interpretation of the second amendment is at fault and the NRA should disappear. Having a gun and using it seems to be the solution regarding everything for some. This is becoming as common as Mom and Apple Pie. Mass shootings are becoming so common the NFL a should have a mass shooting right before each game in honor of Wayne La Piss Ant while Ted Nugent plays the Star Spangled Banner. Blood is on the hands of that asshole.

[brentspeak]

49. Well said n/t

[AngryAmish]

39. shooter is probably a teabagger

[sweetapogee]

153. best post ever

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

if the MSM had your balls, this country would last forever.

[onenote]

154. Do you still think that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/us/police-identify-gunman-in-maryland-mall-shooting.html?_r=0

[workinclasszero]

44. Another day, another mass killing in America..

Thanks NRA, you terrorist scum!

[HughBeaumont]

50. My sister's FB post:

"We go to the Columbia Mall every Saturday after (nephew)s game in Howard County. Today he was going to take the boys to the mall after the game but decided to come home. Thank you Jesus!!!"

When I visit, I go to this mall sometimes. Very crowded mall, very easy for this sort of thing to happen, very easy for lots of damage to occur from where the gunman was located. Not near enough security.

This country is descending into madness.

[yuiyoshida]

77. This country is descending into madness.

well said.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

52. This is what we have accepted.

Nothing will change, crybaby gun owners and their right to own toys comes before your right to live.

[workinclasszero]

150. Yup gotta water that liberty tree

with the blood and dead bodies of school kids and folks out shopping or going to the movies.

Fortunately the NRA has a solution!

Sell even more military assault semi autos rifles with 30 round clips, purposely designed to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time to every insane enraged right wing teabagger high on hate radio that crawls in off the street to your local mass kill gun store!

[BlueStreak]

56. But there hasn't been a single gun shooting at a school today (yet).

[Nanjing to Seoul]

57. Cue Gundamenralists saying it wasn't the gun in 5. . .4. . .3. . .2. . .1. . .

[onehandle]

59. Gun culture taking a break from shooting up schools. nt

[pothos]

61. well it is the weekend after all

[ErikJ]

60. Time for Retail and mall lobby to battle the NRA.

If these keep happening it will mean the end of Bricks and Mortar.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. Excellent point.

Trouble with that is, many malls today are anchored by Wal-Mart and K-Mart and other stores which make a ton of money selling guns. Maybe that's why they have been silent after every mall shooting.

[sked14]

83. The only firearms Walmart and K-Mart sell are rifles,

not handguns.

[OrwellwasRight]

89. So?

Rifles of various types are not only efficient murder weapons, but have been used in a number of mass shootings. I'd venture to say more so than "handguns," because of the ease of killing with gigantic ammo clips.

Also, the people in Alaska say they can buy handguns at Wal-Mart.

PS Don't forget shotguns. Wal-Mart sells those too.

PPS Not really sure what your point was. It didn't really disprove that mall owners and the NRA have shared interests (gun sales) as well as opposing interests (safety of shoppers).

[ScreamingMeemie]

87. We don't have a mall in this city that is anchored by a Walmart.

Walmart is typically a "Superstore" (groceries included) that sits on its own plot of land.

[OrwellwasRight]

93. Your city isn't "every city"

I have been to a number of malls in and around San Diego that are anchored by Wal-Marts. I can guarantee you there are many more.

And many if not most malls are owned by national real estate conglomerates that have to consider their relationships with the chains that occupy various of their malls even if the chain doesn't occupy every mall.

Your post really makes no sense. It doesn't disprove either that the other post made an excellent point or that having malls challenge the NRA might be harder than it first appears.

[ScreamingMeemie]

96. Let me rephrase it (my post makes quite a bit of sense).

I have lived in or near 10 major cities. From Detroit, MI, to Milwaukee, WI; on over to Winston Salem, NC, Charleston, SC, and Syracuse, NY. Most malls (including the one involved today)



don't have Walmart or KMart as an anchor store.

It is merely a comment on your comment. Walmart and "The Mall" are typically two VERY separate entities. While there may be (and I'm sure there are) Walmart stores as mall anchors, it's not typical.

And that is all I'm going to say about that because I'm one of those who would rather the gun battles be fought in their own forum. Have a GREAT weekend.

[OrwellwasRight]

103. Yes, you know all about malls. Not.

Here is College Grove, it has both a Wal-Mart and a Sam' Club:
http://www.nuvilla.com/sandiego/college-grove-shopping.php

Here is Grossmont Center, it has a Wal-Mart:
http://www.grossmontcenter.com/shop/store-directory.html

Wal-Mart to anchor redevelopment of Arvada Triangle Shopping Center:
http://arvadatriangle.org/

A large list of Wal-Marts located in Malls:
http://www.mallseeker.com/walmart.aspx

New Wal-Mart Center could be headed to Burgaw
http://www.wwaytv3.com/2013/10/17/new-walmart-shopping-center-could-be-headed-to-burgaw

New Wal-MArt for Oakwood Commons Shopping Center in Ohio
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/walmart_supercenter_confirmed_for_oakwood_commons_shopping_center_in_south_euclid.html

A number of these are owned by Westfield Malls, which may indeed have a hard time getting into a political battle with a large tenant.

And that's not even getting into K-Marts or sporting goods stores (chain or local) that may also occupy malls and complicate the issue.

You were saying?

[ScreamingMeemie]

107. Never said I did. I stick by my original statement. It's an oddity, not a regular thing.

Sorry, but most malls are not anchored by Walmart or, especially, Kmart. We don't even have a Kmart within 250 miles. Both should be dealt with separately (in other words, wasted money). That's the last I'm going to say because this is a gun discussion. If want to discuss guns, I hang out in the gun forum.

[OrwellwasRight]

111. You keep saying you're going to end the conversation, then you keep responding.

Also, where did I say "most malls are anchored by Wal-Mart or K-Mart?" And how is it relevant at all that YOU don't live within 250 miles of a K-Mart? Even if true, it's irrelevant to the entire conversation.

If you hang out in the gun forum, go there. I'm not forcing you to post here. I'm simply saying that Mall owners, who have an interest in keeping shoppers safe and therefore may be interested in the laws that allow would-be shooters to walk around with guns in malls, may also have a financial interest in shutting up about the whole issue so as not to lose tenants. Nothing you have said disproves this. And it wouldn't disprove it if you posted it in the Gun Forum. You'd, what, just have your posse there to back you up on your irrelevant posts?

[Divernan]

119. We have a WalMart smack dab in the middle of the local mall.(suburban Pittsburgh)

[Sunlei]

63. sounds like *another* public suicide

[doc03]

67. If only everyone was packing these things wouldn't happen

[durablend]

90. Look folks! Wayne LaPierre on DU! n/t

[red dog 1]

68. K&R...Thanks for posting.

The NBC article says "Three witnesses say the gun was a shotgun."

[LiberalEsto]

70. UPDATE: 4 others injured including one shot in foot NBC4 DC

"Four other people reportedly have been transported to area hospitals. One victim suffered a gunshot wound to the foot. The other three had injuries not directly connected to the shooting, though they may have been related to the chaotic scene that followed. One had a twisted ankle, police said, and two people had seizures."

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Columbia-Mall-shooting-Police-Active-Shooter-in-Columbia-Mall--241962941.html

[Neurotica]

71. Too close to home. Husband called at 11:50am to tell me he was fine (at work at mall complex)

He started by saying not to worry. And I had no idea what he was talking about at that point.

His office building is in the mall complex. He and his colleagues were about to head to lunch at the mall when they saw the police/emergency vehicles. And I guess they somehow found out right away what was going on b/c he told me and I found a brief statement from Howard Cty PD about an active shooter situation. He could see all the activity from his office window.

Our teenage son was so worried. He didn't want to know anything else. I was fortunately able to tell him just a bit ago that everything seems to be under control. Relieved for my husband and so sorry to know that families have been affected once again by gun violence, whatever its origin.

[hack89]

74. Appears the weapon was a shotgun

Shooting was in a skate shop.

[Lasher]

79. I have a friend who lives one mile from there.

What a tragedy.

[shenmue]

84. Good Lord

What is going on?

[seveneyes]

85. Domestic dispute

A federal official briefed on the shooting told CNN preliminary information indicates the shooting may have been related to a domestic dispute.

[Dash87]

88. Mass shootings - as American as apple pie!

It's our new national past-time - killing innocent people with a gun because you hate the world and want revenge against it. The answer to this is, of course, to arm more people, thus causing more shootings, and so on.

When did extreme avoidant-personality-driven psychosis become an America-wide cultural trait? Are we sending people to live on Mars yet? Stop this spinning blue ball - I want off...

[Aerows]

99. Good grief

This is just horrible. Everywhere you go you have to be worried that some lunatic is going to shoot up the place.

[Demo_Chris]

128. No, actually you do not...

You should be far more worried you will be struck by lightning en route, or slip in your shower, or accidentally poison yourself, or fall while changing a light bulb. There are thousands of ways to die; and a mass shooting is pretty near the bottom of the list.

[Aerows]

133. Uh, sure

Explain then to me why my entire family got shot at in an upscale neighborhood when they tried to steal my mom's car several years ago, and there were gun shots on the freeway in Florida as I was going by.

I think my chances are smaller now since I live in less of an urban area, but you never know. Do I sound like I'm screaming for gun control? If it sounds that way, you can get all defensive about it and say it won't happen.

Nowhere did my post scream for gun control, but you know, I'm starting to think I need to change my mind on the issue. But feel free to explain how safe it is for every Tom, Dick and Scary to have as many guns as they can afford.

[Demo_Chris]

142. It really does not matter where you or I fall on the issue...

Nor have I bothered to express an opinion. There's no point. Meaningful gun control is not going to happen. At best you might see some feel-good nonsense designed to impress the ignorant, but I doubt you'll even get that much. It's a non-starter. Real gun control wouldn't pass the house (for obvious reasons), it wouldn't pass the Senate, President Obama wouldn't sign it, and even if he did the USSC would strike it down. The only impact legislation like this would have is ensuring that our party gets CREAMED in the following election.

[Beacool]

108. The answer is more guns. Everyone should carry a gun.

Then we can really thin the herd and live like the old far West. That'll take care of the global over population.

[OrwellwasRight]

113. Might help with the unemployment problem.

Well, unless schools keep being the target. Under our current laws, children are too young to enter the job market. But Rand Paul is working on changing that.

[Beacool]

123. Child labor?

Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's go back to the days of Dickens.

[OrwellwasRight]

129. Try reading my post again.

You think I was citing Rand Paul in a positive way? On DU?

[Beacool]

131. I know what you meant.

I was rolling my eyes at Rand. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

[OrwellwasRight]

136. OK, good!

Phew. I had wondered whether to use the sarcasm smilie, but figured it wasn't necessary given your excellent use of sarcasm in the post I was responding to.

[Beacool]

143. We are on the same page.

[LiberalEsto]

114. Another UPDATE: 2 victims worked in the mall

From Buzzfeed:

"Update, 4:20 p.m., ET: Police Chief Bill McMahon said the two victims worked at a shop in the mall.

The two victims are an adult male and an adult female in their 20s who worked at a store in the mall, Chief Bill McMahon said in a second press conference. Police don’t yet know the identity of the shooter or have a motive.

The shooter’s body was also said to have been found outside a Zumiez store."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/at-least-three-people-dead-at-mall-shooting-in-baltimore

NBC4 DC: "Police identified the two killed as Brianna Benlolo, 21, of College Park, Md. and Tyler Johnson, 25, of Ellicott City, Md. Both were employees of Zumiez, a store on the upper level of the mall that caters to young shoppers, police said at an afternoon press conference."

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Columbia-Mall-shooting-Police-Active-Shooter-in-Columbia-Mall--241962941.html

[seveneyes]

116. Sounds like a jealous lover targeted his ex and new lover

And it happened to be at a mall workplace. All the other 2nd Amendment/nra diversion is just posturing. I'm betting there were threats and signs prior to the fatal act.

[warrant46]

130. It was a domestic situation and the guy who was jilted got even

and killed his girl friend and her new lover. Then he shot himself.

[ScreamingMeemie]

132. Edited. Apparently there's an update.

How sad.

[warrant46]

134. Brianna Benlolo, 21, of College Park, Md

https://www.facebook.com/brianna.benlolo

[onenote]

155. Do you have a link to back that up?

[Divernan]

118. Instead of fire drills, employers/schools can have effing-crazy-gun-nut drills.

All the way from grade school through college dorms, we had fire drills. When I worked at a state capitol building, we had evacuation drills in the event of fire or bomb threats. I note in comments on this story elsewhere that employees in the mall seemed to know of a closet in which to lock themselves. So we have to adjust. If you go to a movie theater sit right next to an emergency exit. In a restaurant, be ready to make a dash for the door to the kitchen and thence to a door to outside. If you're in a store at the Mall, dash after the employees who are running for safety.
Ain't life in America just grand!?!?

[Skittles]

141. har har so funny

please proceed to........aw never mind

[DCBob]

127. I was there just a couple of weeks ago.

I have been to that mall several times. I never would have thought something like this would happen. There are other malls around here in rougher neighborhoods that would be more likely. Shows this kind of crazy shit can happen anywhere.

[crim son]

147. You know,

not everybody who drives a motor vehicle is an irresponsible asshole, but they all have to be trained, licensed and insured nonetheless. Why is it not the same with guns, which are made specifically to kill other living things You could probably weed out some of the freaks if they had to go to several weeks of training in order to legally possess their firearm. And lt's be real, a whole bunch of these murderers own their firearms legally.

Finally, I don't give a crap if you value your right to enjoy target practice or shoot animals dead at certain times of the year. My safety and the safety of my children, my neighbors and my neighbors' children, trumps your right to have fun. Sorry.

Nah, you're right. I'm not sorry.

[Duckhunter935]

151. well you are wrong

you do not have to be licensed, insured and trained to own a car. It is also not a right per the 2nd amendment as ratified several times by the courts. I have a license, been trained with 20+ years in the military and had federal, state and local background checks. I have paid several hundred dollars for this.

I have no big issues with a licensing program for weapons, then give up background checks except for initial and license renewal. Same 4 year time as with a vehicle license and same cost if not lower to prevent challenge in the court on 2nd amendment grounds. should the renewal be more strict than vehicle licenses or the same? I just renewed nmine by getting a new picture and paying 33.50. I would assume you would be for this. I show my license and can walk out with a weapon.

[godevil10]

149. Some final thoughs to go along with my other comments on this.

It seems to me to be self-evident that a steady diet of viewing the extreme violence of our movies, games and TV desensitizes not only individuals but our society as a whole to this sort of violence and immunizes us from the consequences of such actions leaving us, not unlike the Romans, wanting to view even more extreme violence, bloodshed and carnage .

Likewise see #145