Man randomly shoots several at Utah mall

[oberliner]

SALT LAKE CITY - A gunman entered a shopping mall and began randomly shooting Monday night, injuring or killing several people before he was killed, police said.

"There have been multiple victims and there are some fatalities. ... I can't confirm the number," police Detective Robin Snyder said outside the Trolley Square Mall.

"The suspect has been killed," she said.

At least four people were hospitalized, three in critical condition and one in serious condition, hospital spokespeople said. Two of the critically injured were males ages 16 and 50, a spokesman said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_us/utah_shooting;_ylt=AgP3omd6cs4arU6dpX_.8jGs0NUE

[jkshaw]

1. More here ...

... ooops, don't know how to do it. I'll type it out -- http://kutv.com

[jkshaw]

2. Well. what do you know ...;

That must be the way to do it!

[MADem]

3. Six have been killed, thus far. Three more are critical. Dreadful.

"We have six fatalities and multiple victims at hospitals," police Detective Robin Snyder said. "They were found throughout the mall. I don't know male or female or ages."

At least four people were hospitalized, three in critical condition and one in serious condition, hospital spokesmen said. Two of the critically injured were a 16-year-old man and a 50-year-old man, a spokesman said.

[951-Riverside]

4. Well is he arab muslim?

...because if he is by law it automatically becomes TERRORISM! :eyes: :sarcasm:

[MichaelHarris]

6. a Muslim

in Utah? That's crazy talk.

[TX-RAT]

68. He's a Bosnian refugee.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5218570

[Monty215]

103. Yes, lets roll our eyes

At jihadist killings. Pretty funny stuff, isn't it.

[951-Riverside]

108. Re "jihadist killings. Pretty funny stuff, isn't it."

Actually the government's definition of terrorism is very funny because "terrorists" kill & wound people everyday in major cities like Los Angeles, New York, Houston, etc but they usually dismiss those killings as "gang warfare" but if a "gang" of arab muslim men went around shooting people randomly this country would probably declare marshal law.

Why is that Monty215?

[Monty215]

110. I dunno

But you can define islamic killings as koranic jihad. Purposeful and with an agenda to spread global islam.

The other random stuff is not quite the same.

[951-Riverside]

113. Re: "The other random stuff is not quite the same."

So you would be happier if some thug shot you in the spine because you ventured into his "hood" instead of an angry arab muslim doing the same?

[Monty215]

115. No

But shouldn't we discourage and combat religious warfare against the populace? Or is that a 'hot issue' that we can't dare to mention?

Edit: When is a Utah mall off limits as a 'hood' of islam? This is just more proof that jihadism doesn't care about location.

[barb162]

152. When do gangs just waltz into a shopping mall and just

start murdering people? Usually gang violence is drug, etc., related

[Porcupine]

5. White Guy. NOT terrorism.

Terrorism is when a person of color thinks out loud about how the US is screwed up and somebody oughta die. Or maybe hides a bunch of match heads in his shoe on the false pretension that he can blow up a plane that way. Actual shooting of innocents by a white guy is NOT terrorism by definition.

[Monty215]

95. Yes, a muslim

The 18-year-old gunman who killed five people in a crowded Utah shopping mall was a Bosnian Muslim refugee who was prepared to kill many more, say investigators.

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited today with cornering Sulejmen Talovic, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived to shoot and kill the gunman.


Jihadism is not based on race. And to think, we went to war to defend these guys there.

[Justitia]

121. What is your source on that? Please provide a link. -eom

[barb162]

153. White or whatever; I don't know where the color thing came in

to the definition. Also there male and female terrorists, not just "guys"

[Amonester]

161. So tim mcveigh was not white then.

Nor is the bu$che junta. :sarcasm:

[superconnected]

7. I'm going to guess soldier...just returned..

Cause he sounds like one of our "hero's" to me.

Okay, I've been looking at the stats too long.

[Towelie]

71. Yeah, you know, because all of those hundreds of thousands of soldiers

who've been over there have been coming back to shoot up public places. And they all have a thirst for blood because they just couldn't kill enough civilians over there. It's a madhouse, MADHOUSE I tell you!

[superconnected]

88. You probably don't remember the fall out from Nam

right into the early eighties it was still common what when someone snapped and shot people they didn't know at mcdonalds, it was a Nam soldier. It wasn't always a mcdonalds. Sometimes it was a nicer restaurant.

That happened sooo many times.

Did they all snap? Nope. Claiming all or nothing has nothing to do with the reality. The reality is right now a whole lot of soldiers are snapping and killing people - often their wives, and sometimes random people. Many have walked in and killed people they didn't know in a public place in the last few years. It's very much a flash back from the Nam fallout.

We will see more of it.

[smitty]

133. Got any links to back up your assertions?

[superconnected]

134. Gawd. look it up yourself.

[INDIA]

137. Burden of proof is on the accuser. Prove it. n/t

[Archae]

8. Second mass shooting...

This one in Philadelphia. :-(

In Philadelphia, violence broke out in an office building in the old Philadelphia Navy Yard, with a man killing three people and critically wounding another before killing himself, according to police.

The shooting took place at 8:30 p.m. in a conference room at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center. Ross describes the scene in the conference room as "utter chaos."

Deputy Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross says the gunman, who may have been an investor, apparently became upset during a board meeting and got into an argument over "some issue about money."

Authorities say after the gunman shot the men in the conference room and duct-taped the two others, he shot at police, who returned fire. Police say he then went behind a door and shot himself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/12/national/main2466510.shtml

[maddezmom]

9. 10 dead in US after two separate shooting sprees

SALT LAKE CITY (AFP) - A gunman armed with a pump-action shotgun has killed five people in a shooting spree through a crowded shopping mall here, as four others died in a separate shooting in a different US city.

Dressed in a trench coat and carrying a backpack, the gunman entered the busy shopping mall in Salt Lake City late Monday and opened fire with a pump-action shotgun, police said Tuesday.

Six people, including the shooter, died.

At about the same time in the eastern city of Philadelphia, a lone gunman entered an office complex and opened fire, leaving at least four people dead, including the gunman.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070213/ts_alt_afp/uscrime_070213110300

[nosferaustin]

10. Down the street

I live in Salt Lake, walking distance from Trolley Square. I'm at the Desert Edge Brew Pub at least once a week. Fortunately for me, I was there with friends on Sunday, so even though I felt like it last night, we didn't go. I would have arrived about the same time that the shooter did, and it sounds like he came in the same way I always do.

The names haven't been released and I hope like hell that I don't recognize any of them when they are.

The local Drinking Liberally meets at Desert Edge on Friday nights, too.

I feel like someone hit me in the stomach this morning. I know I'm over reacting but some punk just shot up a place of refuge for me in this otherwise sometimes hard to live in place.

[raccoon]

11. Teen Gunman kills 5 in Utah mall

By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 53 minutes ago

SALT LAKE CITY - A historic mall's winding hallways became a shooting gallery for an 18-year-old gunman in a trench coat who fired a shotgun randomly at customers, killing five and wounding four before being killed by police, authorities and witnesses said.

The shooter, whose name was not released, also was armed with a handgun and had several rounds of ammunition, Salt Lake City police Detective Robin Snyder said early Tuesday. No motive has yet been determined, she said.

For hours after Monday evening's rampage at the Trolley Square shopping mall, police searched stores for scared, shocked shoppers and employees who were hunkered down awaiting a safe escort.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070213/ap_on_re_us/utah_shooting

[Apollo11]

12. Where are all the "gun rights" people??

Maybe they can help me "understand" why tougher gun control would be "wrong"? :eyes:

[atreides1]

16. I'm here

I believe in gun rights, but I don't defend this. Their are loopholes in the laws that cannot be closed because of organizations like the NRA, but the only way to change the thought process about
gun rights is from within.

Under this administration we've lost rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I'm not willing to give this up!

Tougher gun control isn't wrong, as long as it doesn't violate our rights under the Constitution.

[Recursion]

73. If this is the "normal" mass shooting...

...you'll find he was already in violation of gun laws. So I don't see what good more of them would do.

[jollyreaper2112]

22. silly liberal

If the other shoppers had guns, they could have taken him out!

:gun-fondling smiley:

[RamboLiberal]

30. Actually that's kind of what happened if story still same as last night

I read it was an off-duty cop that did him in.

[redqueen]

49. I wonder why there's no snarky response to this. n/t

[slackmaster]

28. I'll be happy to answer if you would be more specific

What kind of "tougher gun control" are you talking about?

If you can think of something that could have prevented this incident from happening (or reduced its severity) without infringing on the rights of people who want to own guns, maybe we have something to discuss.

Please allow me to point out that the minimum age to get a concealed handgun permit in Utah is 21* (as is shooting people other than in self-defense), so by carrying a concealed handgun the shooter was obviously in violation of existing laws.

(* See http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFNewApp.html )

[Apollo11]

33. Next time ask me a harder question

"If you can think of something that could have prevented this incident from happening (or reduced its severity)"

Yes - make it a crime to carry a gun in a public place.

Enforce this law with random checks and prohibitive fines.

Let shopping malls install metal detectors at the entrance.


"without infringing on the rights of people who want to own guns"

I don't agree that you should have the right to carry firearms (period)

[slackmaster]

34. Well, this discussion is going nowhere fast

Yes - make it a crime to carry a gun in a public place.

Already a crime (albeit with an exception for licensed people, which is not relevant here). The shooter violated it.

Enforce this law with random checks...

4th Amendment violation.

Let shopping malls install metal detectors at the entrance.

I believe that is already allowed.

I don't agree that you should have the right to carry firearms (period)

Since my right to carry firearms has nothing to do with this incident, this is not relevant and we will have to agree to disagree.

[benEzra]

38. Already law in this case...

"If you can think of something that could have prevented this incident from happening (or reduced its severity)"

Yes - make it a crime to carry a gun in a public place.

It's already a crime to carry a concealed shotgun in a public place. It's also a crime to carry a concealed handgun in a public place unless you are authorized by the state to do so. Here in NC, to qualify for a license, you have to have training on the law, range time, an FBI background check, be fingerprinted, AND clear a mental health records check. If this guy was 18, he couldn't have gotten a license even if he wanted one.

Enforce this law with random checks and prohibitive fines.

"Prohibitive fines"--carrying a concealed weapon without a license will get you prison. Never mind the fines...it's a FELONY in most jurisdictions.

Let shopping malls install metal detectors at the entrance.

There's nothing stopping them from doing this now, except for the fact that airline-style security screening would keep most customers out of the mall due to the hassle, and wouldn't do a darn thing about the guy who walks through the door with a shotgun under his coat and starts shooting.

I don't agree that you should have the right to carry firearms (period)

So you wouldn't have disarmed the shooter, but you might have disarmed the civilian (off-duty cop carrying a concealed handgun) who stopped him.

This guy was NOT a CCW licensee. His carrying guns was already illegal, and making it Double Super Illegal wouldn't have changed anything.

What might change something is better mental health care in this country, and keeping society from falling apart at the seams. Not taking away privileges from people of good will who didn't have a thing to do with this scenario.

[redqueen]

50. "double super illegal"... I like that.

:)

[rinsd]

43. Are you sure you want harder questions?

"Yes - make it a crime to carry a gun in a public place."

I believe it already is.

"Enforce this law with random checks and prohibitive fines."

You want the cops randomly searching people all the time? Talk about your police states.

"Let shopping malls install metal detectors at the entrance."

And secruity guards to monitor those.

Perhaps we should all have some sort of lobotomies rendering our ability to pull a trigger null.

You must have LOVED the Patriot Act which is light of your views must have been seen as areasonable response to a terrorist act.

[Sapere aude]

55. "I don't agree that you should have the right to carry firearms (period)"

I guess people like you should be able to decide what our rights ought to be.
Let's do away with the constitution and the courts and just put all our rights on the block and let the majority decide what they should be. That way we could have slavery again and only the land owners can vote.

[piedmont]

56. Is ignorance blissful for you?

[MilesColtrane]

128. "I don't agree that you should have the right to carry firearms (period)"

I'd wager that most victims of violent crime would disagree with you.

[primavera]

146. Maybe, but so what?

1.) You don't know for sure that victims of violent crime would uniformly consider themselves to be safe if they were as armed to the teeth as their assailants. 2.) Even if they did all feel that way as you suggest, who's to say they would be correct in their assessment? 3.) Even if they all felt that way and were objectively right to feel that way, why would you base a major policy decision upon the priorities of the small percentage of the population most intimately affected by violent crime? That's like asking crack addicts whether drugs should be legalized - they simply have too great a personal stake in the question to be able to evaluate the greater issue impartially.

[benEzra]

31. And what would you propose?

Where are all the "gun rights" people?? Maybe they can help me "understand" why tougher gun control would be "wrong"? :eyes:

And what would you propose? Outlawing shotguns (and rifles and pistols) and fighting the resultant civil war to take them away? Or restricting trench coats to people over 21? Or maybe just making it illegal to carry a shotgun to the mall and shoot people...

My contention is that passing more restrictions on the contents of our family's gun safe does't do a darn thing about the guy who takes a shotgun to the mall. Forty percent of households own guns in the United States, nearly all safely and responsibly.

FWIW, according to the CDC, 274 people were killed yesterday by alcohol (100,000/yr). Would you support alcohol prohibition on that basis, or not? I personally don't...

If the other shoppers had guns, they could have taken him out!

They did, if reports are correct.

[primavera]

44. Civil war?

"Outlawing shotguns (and rifles and pistols) and fighting the resultant civil war to take them away?"

Sorry, but this always strikes me as a hollow argument. If you base your assessment of the worthiness of a piece of legislation upon the ease or lack thereof with which it may be enforced, then we should have no laws at all, as every law creates a right or constraint that will piss off somebody. That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate to pass laws.

Besides, most countries on earth have more restrictive gun control laws than we have; in many cases, much more restrictive, up to and including outright bans on them, yet, strangely enough, "civil wars" do not seem to have been the inevitable outcome in those countries. Constantly alleging that responsible gun control laws would spark some massive, violent uprising is a straw man argument.

[Xithras]

54. Gun ownership is far more ingrained here.

Personally, no law will ever force me to turn in my rifles. None. You can ban them outright tomorrow, and my guns will just go into a secure hiding space. The vast majority of gun owners in the US will do the same thing.

Or are you also proposing door to door house searches to look for contraband firearms? THAT is what would spark a civil war.

[primavera]

57. It is right now

100 years ago the prospect of black people drinking at the same water fountain as white people was considered nothing less than sacreligious. Now, happily, most people know better. It didn't happen overnight, I'll grant you, and it's still an ongoing effort, but it was and remains unquestionably worth the effort.

Responsible gun control laws may not be able to influence you, but perhaps there is still hope that your children may yet see the light and realize that a nation where every Tom, Dick, and Harry packs heat is an insanity whose time came and went with the Wild West.

[benEzra]

64. Responsible gun ownership is not morally equivalent to slavery...

100 years ago the prospect of black people drinking at the same water fountain as white people was considered nothing less than sacreligious. Now, happily, most people know better. It didn't happen overnight, I'll grant you, and it's still an ongoing effort, but it was and remains unquestionably worth the effort.

Responsible gun control laws may not be able to influence you, but perhaps there is still hope that your children may yet see the light and realize that a nation where every Tom, Dick, and Harry packs heat is an insanity whose time came and went with the Wild West.

Responsible gun ownership is not morally equivalent to slavery. It is impossible to "own" slaves and NOT take away somebody else's freedom. It is entirely possible to own guns and not shoot innocent people.

If you want to hitch the fortunes of the Democratic party, or the progressive agenda, to marginalizing and eventually banning responsible gun ownership, you will be the savior of the Republican party...

The "Dems'll take yer guns" meme is a loser. Don't feed it.

[primavera]

69. Well, I wasn't actually talking about slavery...

... but racial discrimination. Still, there is obviously a difference between discrimination (or slavery) and gun ownership, although I would say that the fact that it is impossible to use a gun without destroying something narrows a little the moral gap between the two. But that's beside the point. My main point was simply that popular attitudes can be changed over time and that it is often entirely appropriate to challenge those attitudes.

[Recursion]

74. Actually gun rights restrictions were rampant in the "wild" west

Law enforcement in the 19th-century was as careless with 2nd-amendment rights as it was with 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights.

[primavera]

87. Really, is that true?

Interesting, I didn't know that. Thank you. See, this is what I love about DU: I learn something new every time I'm here.

[Dean Martin]

92. Yes, most western towns required guns to be checked

Especially the cow towns. People had to check their guns in at the sheriff's office upon entering city limits. And even the law enforcement when they made their rounds carried their weapons concealed most of the time, not out in plain view on their hips like movies depict.

Stats were gathered for Deadwood, SD and a town in Massachussetts during the same time period (1870s or 1880s). In the Mass. town, all guns were banned.


There were twice as many murders over the period in the Mass. town as there were in Deadwood. The HBO show about Deadwood is about as accurate as Lost in Space was depicting NASA.

The source for the Deadwood/Mass story was Wild West Tech on the History Channel.

[Dean Martin]

91. most felons are more afraid of being shot than being arrested

I still maintain that all banning gunds does is prevents honest law abiding people, regardless of ethnic background, from defending themselves against criminals. My fiance grew up in the ghetto and lived in dwellings that were robbed several times, including hers. The only dwelling she lived in that was never hit was her grandmother's, because her grandmother kept a loaded shotgun next to her bed.
The gangbangers avoided her house.

In the book "Makes Me Wanna Holler" by Nathan McCall, Mr. McCall says when he was breaking into houses, he was never afraid of being arrested by police or going to prison. He was afraid of a homeowner shooting him with a gun and tried to avoid homes he thought had armed people inside.

My God, we have hundreds across the nation killed every day in cars, and I see complete morons every single day running red lights, cutting people off, and doing insane things behind a 2,000 pound machine that would kill far more than a handgun. Yet there's no movement to have cars banned. I see and hear about people acting decent and normal until they become drunk then getting into fights and harming or killing each other, yet they don't again try to ban alcohol, which probably should be banned, in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with there being tougher regulations on guns as some do. I believe a person should require a permit to carry a handgun, and I believe one should first have to take classes and prove they know how to safely use and handle one, the same as driving a car. But I don't think they should flat out be banned. The world now is too unsafe for that. I'd ask people who want to see guns banned if they've ever lived in the unsafe high crime areas and dealt with the criminal elements there, and challenge them to go live in those areas for a couple of years and then decide. I can tell you from my fiance's experiences, she originally was afraid of guns and bought into all the negative press and hype surrounding them. Now however, she is extremely grateful that I have a gun and she told me the other day that I would be crazy to ever get rid of it.


This tragedy is extremely sad. In today's world however, I don't see how we are going to be able make events like these go away. We are not living in a safe world. We are one disaster removed (see Katrina) from living like we did in prehistoric times, just fighting for survival. Anyone who thinks different is seeing the world through rose colored glasses. I don't believe we're ever going to be able to ban guns. I think there are some that would give them up, but that hasn't worked to well in Australia and England, and I think there are many out there who will spark the Civil War that has previously been mentioned if the attempt is made. As for our children, they're inheriting and even unsafer world than ours. All of our well intentions and honest desires to make things better, quite frankly, are not working. With gangs and crime and terrorists, the world our grandchildren inherits may very well be a world where everyone has to fight for survival. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[Esra Star]

135. I find your logic a little difficult to follow.

To live in a world where everyone is armed to the teeth seems like a nightmare.
If you allow people to pack lethal weapons, then the race is on to have a
better weapon, to be expert at using it and most importantly be the first
to fire. I can see a whole lot of nervous people walking around with
twitchy trigger fingers.
One other thing:- the gun laws in Australia are working fine.
You can't get every last weapon but you get most.
The people that didn't sell their guns in the buyback have buried them
in some safe place or other. I think I can live with inaccessible guns.

[krispos42]

138. You argue from a false assumption

That the people of this country would be competing like nations do. Like in Europe before the end of the Second World War, when about one a generation the major players would have some sort of fairly major armed conflict.

Unlike the military, there is only so far you can go with concealed pistols. The same cartridges commonly carried for self defense have been around for a century or so. The 9x19mm, the .45 ACP, the .380 ACP, the .38 Special, the .357 Magnum, the .45 Colt are between 70 and 135 years old. Only recently have a couple of new cartridges come out, the .40 S&W, the .357 Sig, and the .45 GAP, and of those, only the .40 S&W is popular.

Likewise, the guns and bullets are undergoing refinement, not radical change. Polymer and ultra-light metal frames make pistols lighter to carry, the guns get a bit more ergonomic, the mechanisms are refined... but the last real revolution in pistols was the Glock, about 20 years ago, with it's safe-action firing system and polymer frame. And the biggest innovation in bullets recently is the creation of the full-metal-jacketed expanding bullets, which offer the feeding reliability of a military non-expanding 'ball' ammo with the wounding effectiveness of a hollow-point slug. Doesn't make it deadlier, but works better in auto-loading pistols.

You can't legally get a full-auto pistol, so that's out. The light weight and lack of a shoulder stock of a handgun means there is a practical limit to the amount of energy the bullet can have, based on the amount of recoil you can tolerate in a tactical situation. Smith and Wesson may be bragging about their new .500 S&W and .460 S&W cartridges as the most powerful in the world, but these are for hunting large animals! NOBODY is carrying them for self defense. These guns are so powerful that they can easily recoil backwards into an unprepared shooter's face! Very painful.

You also argue from the assumption that the people who carry are looking for a fight. That is also a false assumption. I keep jumper cables in my car. Doesn't mean I'm looking forward to having a dead battery at 3am in February in Minnesota, it just means that I'm prepared in case I have a dead battery. I also have an MRE in my car. Doesn't mean I'm looking forward to being lost in the woods long enough to have to eat it. Besides, it's a vegetarian one. Chow mein, I believe. Bleah. :-)

I don't know offhand how the laws in Australia are working. I know the laws in the UK aren't.

[benEzra]

60. Those countries are not the United States...

"Outlawing shotguns (and rifles and pistols) and fighting the resultant civil war to take them away?"

Sorry, but this always strikes me as a hollow argument. If you base your assessment of the worthiness of a piece of legislation upon the ease or lack thereof with which it may be enforced, then we should have no laws at all, as every law creates a right or constraint that will piss off somebody. That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate to pass laws.

Besides, most countries on earth have more restrictive gun control laws than we have; in many cases, much more restrictive, up to and including outright bans on them, yet, strangely enough, "civil wars" do not seem to have been the inevitable outcome in those countries. Constantly alleging that responsible gun control laws would spark some massive, violent uprising is a straw man argument.

Those countries are not the United States. One can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that if a ban along the lines of S.1431 (2004 session) had passed, and had it not exempted currently owned weapons, then either it would not be enforced, or enforcement attempts would have ignited a domestic insurgency--and that was just a subset of lawfully owned firearms.

Forty percent of American households own firearms--half of whom are Dems and indies--and a sizeable fraction (perhaps even a majority) of that percentage will not give them up. This is not the UK. Don't forget that the American Revolution didn't start on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. The first shots were fired much earlier, on April 19, 1775, when British law enforcement tried to confiscate some farmers' guns...

Nor would U.S. law enforcement or military likely even attempt to enforce a gun ban, outside of a few anti-gun jurisdictions like New Jersey, Massachusetts, or southern California. Google the Combat Arms Survey of U.S. combat Marines (mid-'90s). When Marines were asked if they would fire on U.S. citizens who resisted an order to turn in their nonsporting firearms after a 30-day amnesty, 75 percent of Marines said no, they would disobey a direct order to do so. And if you know anything about the military, disobeying a direct order is serious business.

Gun confiscation will not happen in this country, and people who don't like their law-abiding neighbors owning guns need to come to grips with that fact. Merely raising the price on over-10-round pistol magazines, and requiring slight cosmetic changes to civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, cost Dems the House AND Senate in '94, and arguably two presidencies ('00 and '04). Care to speculate on the political fallout from any sort of gun confiscation proposal?

There IS common ground to be found on gun violence prevention. Messing around in the gun safes of the law abiding is not it.

[primavera]

67. That's yet another straw man

At no point have I suggested that the US should pass an immediate law outlawing firearms and forcibly confiscate them from the households of gun owners, any more than I advocate prohibiting alcohol or tobacco consumption. I do, however, believe that, like alcohol and tobacco use, a concerted plan of public education, practiced consistently over the span of decades, could very well reduce the public's enfatuation with those hazardous substances, to the betterment of the country, quite possibly reaching a point eventually where a ban might be viable.

Look at the progress we've made on smoking. 50 years ago, virtually everyone who could afford to smoked. Now, smokers represent a relatively small percentage (sorry, I don't know the actual figure, but it's certainly a great deal lower today than it was 50 years ago). Even now, I don't think we've reached a stage at which tobacco could be banned, but we're a lot closer to it than we were 50 years ago and we've save god only knows how many lives simply by making the effort to depict tobacco for was it is: not some glamorous habit of movie stars, but an extremely dangerous and addictive drug. What I would like to see happen is not the police state scenario you suggest, but meely to stop depicting guns as the utensiles of heroic figures to be freely wielded by every god-fearin', freedom-lovin' Amurikan, but as extremely dangerous items, the virtually unrestricted access to which results in a great many injuries and deaths in this country.

You say the US isn't the UK. Obviously not. But what makes you so certain that we cannot aspire to follow the example which they and so many other countries have set? The vast, overwhelming majority of the developed world understands that guns constitute a threat to public safety and consequently restricts access to them. If the whole world tells you you're drunk, maybe you ought to sit down.

[Edweird]

78. What makes the UK so great?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
The criminals STILL have guns, by the law abiding citizens are stuck.

[primavera]

84. It's a start

I never said the UK had achieved a perfect, gun-free society, only that they've managed to substantially reduce the number of guns in their country and, lo and behold, gun-related violence - as the article you yourself just provided cites - now represents only a miniscule percentage of criminal activity. What a shock.

[slackmaster]

89. UK violent crime rates have been about 1/3 those of US for about 100 years

Neither country had any gun control at all until 1920 for the UK, and 1934 for the USA. Crime rates have always been inversely correlated with unemployment and other measures of economic hardship.

[krispos42]

131. No, it's a dead-end. The UK homicide rate had doubled since 1967

And ours is down by 11%. We win, they lose. Our homicide rate used to be 9 times that of the UK. Now it's like 3.8 times.

[Recursion]

75. This is an uncomfortable argument, but I'll make it:

Merely raising the price on over-10-round pistol magazines, and requiring slight cosmetic changes to civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, cost Dems the House AND Senate in '94, and arguably two presidencies ('00 and '04)

Gore's stance on gun control made the election in 2000 narrow enough that Bush could steal it.

How many people has that killed, as opposed to random shootings?

[Sapere aude]

77. We don't have responsible gun control laws now? You want "feel good" laws I think.

No law you can pass would prevent someone who wants to, getting a gun and shooting people. You would have to destroy all guns and that isn't going to happen.

It is over kill to want new laws every time there is gun violence. It is sad that people do what they do, but you can't stop it with more laws. Enforce the laws that we have and leave the law abiding gun owners alone. That includes me.

[primavera]

81. Not really wanting new laws every time there is gun violence

I think gun control proponents have been asking for basically the same legal reforms pretty consistently for decades; they just renew the same call whenever tragedies like this on come along and so dramatically demonstrate the need for the reforms they've been calling for all along. Since such tragedies occur frequently in a society as armed to the teeth as ours, it probably sounds like there's a constant hew and cry for new laws, but, really, I think it's been pretty much the same appeal all along. Unfortunately, since it's a foregone conclusion inside the beltway that you can't fight the gun lobby, the needed reforms never get passed and so the public has to keep up its unchanged but unheeded appeal, year after year, decade after decade.

[Irreverend IX]

142. What legal reforms would those be?

The main entree on the gun-grabber plate for the last decade and a half has been the "assault weapon" ban. This law restricted a class of weapons that are almost never used in crimes and cost Democrats an unbelievable amount of political capital, and the Bradys are still trying to revive it. No gun law other than an outright ban on all firearms will put a dent in these shooting incidents, which constitute an infinitesimal portion of US homicides as is, and that cure would be worse than the disease, as with drug prohibition.

[primavera]

147. Agreed, a ban is ultimately what's needed

Going after little fish like assault weapons is simply going after the most egregious expressions of America's pathological enfatuation with destruction. Ultimately, you're right, what needs to happen is an outright ban on all, or at least the vast majority of, firearms, as is practiced and enforced in every civilized country on earth. But evolution takes time, especially when you live in as backwards a country as the US, so you go about it piecemeal, trying to educate Americans that not having access to, for instance, high cyclic rate machine guns with depleted uranium shells hasn't resulted in either a civil war or widespread domestic insecurity, in the hope that they'll eventually figure out that they can live without other guns as well.

[Irreverend IX]

148. So you think only George W. Bush's minions should have firearms?

An army of jackbooted Homeland Security thugs and drug warriors kicking in doors on no-knock warrants scares me more than a lone nutcase with a shotgun ever could, yet some people still want to see US citizens rendered completely helpless before the might of the state. The vast majority of civilian firearms in the US are used for recreation and personal protection, not murder and destruction. Most of the AR-15s the Bradys painted as a menace to society are only used to punch holes in tin cans and pieces of paper. An all-out ban will never happen, not in a country with 200 million privately-owned firearms, and if such a thing ever does come to pass it will create a black market every bit as robust as today's drug trade. Even in England the cops can't keep guns out of the hands of the young criminal element, who treat Eastern Bloc surplus pistols as status symbols. The UK's strategy of blaming inanimate objects for social problems and criminalizing self-defense is going to bear bitter fruit, and we would do well not to follow in their footsteps.

[primavera]

149. So you think you could resist George Bush's minions with a firearm?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if the shrub's gestapo wants in, they're going to get in, whether you have your precious firearm or not. The only thing your gun will accomplish is to provide them with a convenient way of branding you as some Waco wacko so that no one will question why they killed you. I certainly agree with you that I do not want to see citizens disempowered vis a vis the state, but no gun is going to help accomplish that end.

[Irreverend IX]

151. Sure I could.

If every other house in your typical suburban subdivision had a simple bolt-action hunting rifle (aka sniper rifle), they could make life hell for any occupying military or fascist police force. When the goons rolled into the area, they would be shot from multiple directions with rounds that rip through light body armor like Kleenex. With a bit of practice, a rifle shooter can hit human-sized targets out to 300 or 400 yards, and a really skilled shooter with a good scope can hit at distances of 800 or even up to 1000 yards. You can get such guns for a couple hundred dollars at most sporting goods stores. Stealthy hit-and-run tactics like this can cripple even the best-equipped occupying force; just ask the insurgents in Iraq. If totalitarians took over the country and the public was determined to resist, the oppressors would have a bad time managing the more heavily-armed areas of the country.

[primavera]

157. Oh really?

Why don't you ask the Branch Davidians how well that worked out for them? Oh yeah, that's right - you can't because they're all dead.

[Irreverend IX]

162. The Branch Davidians were just 50 people...

Who barricaded themselves in a fixed location. A bit different from a widespread insurgency. And how many millions of dollars did the feds spend sending all those tanks and BATF troopers to take down 50 people? Multiply that by the number of people with guns in a hypothetical resistance scenario and you're talking real money.

[barb162]

156. Or we have to have checks on people before they go in a mall

or office building or airport or, or, or .
We already do it in so many places now, may as well start doing it at the malls.

[ohio2007]

85. guess they are loaded for bear and on their way to "the mall"

Is Utah a conceal and carry state?

[benEzra]

93. All states except Illinois and Wisconsin are CCW states...

Is Utah a conceal and carry state?

All states except Illinois and Wisconsin are CCW states, so, yes, Utah is a CCW state.

The shooter couldn't have obtained a permit even if he thought he needed one, though. He was underage, and may have had a disqualifying criminal record (according to some reports), unless Utah discards juvenile convictions at 18.

[drumz4hire]

139. I've heard that mall...

is posted as no guns allowed, so any permit holders likely left
their guns in their cars, since most permit holers are law abiding

Only the off-duty cop could legally carry

Guess the bad guy didn't see the "no guns allowed" sign :shrug:

[Irreverend IX]

144. That's right...

Trolley Square had no-guns signs posted, for all the good it did. Off-duty cops are allowed to ignore those, but the law-abiding shoppers were SOL when that guy started his rampage.

[BreweryYardRat]

90. You can legally acquire a shotgun at 18, but...

I'd bet this guy didn't pick it up legally, since he was carrying a handgun (illegal to possess until 21 here, and it's the same in Utah). Gun control laws can't stop illegal arms sales, or someone taking the guns from a parent's house (another likely possibility.)

And for every misuse of a shotgun (extremely uncommon), there will be plenty of people who've saved their lives or the lives of a family member.

[krispos42]

130. Right here

But if I said anything before, I would be 'ignoring the tragety to make a political statement'.

Now that you've broken issue, let's talk about it.


Why don't you tell me how banning AK47 and M16-looking weapons would have prevented this?

Why don't you tell me how banning magazine capacities over 10 rounds would have prevented this?

Why don't you tell me how banning long arms with protruding pistol grips would have prevented this?

Why don't you tell me how banning rifles with detachable magazines would have prevented this?

Why don't you tell me how banning long guns with bayonet mounts would have prevented this?

Why don't you explain to everybody here why the homicide rate in the UK has doubled since 1967 DESPITE a 1987 ban on semi-automatic long guns, a 1996 ban on handguns, mandatory gun registration, and the four million public-area police-monitored security cameras in the UK that are suppose to reduce crime?

Why don't you explain to everybody here why our assault-weapon-filled, handgun-filled, high-capacity-magazine-filled, unregistered-firearm-filled country has seen an 11% in the same time period?

Why don't you explain to everybody here how California's crime rate is so high despite extremely strict gun-control laws?

Why don't you explain to everybody here how poverty and economic injustice has NOTHING to do with violent and property crime but gun ownership rates have everything to do with it?

Why don't you expain to everyone how US citizens posess 68% of ALL civilian-owned firearms IN THE WORLD, yet we rank 24th in world homicide rates and 8th in gun-related homicides?

Why don't you tell everybody how this is not a case of moral panic?




The guy went crazy and killed a bunch of people. End of story. I'd rather he went on a shooting rampage than decided to set off a bomb someplace, because shooting rampages kill less people than terrorist bombings.

Exhibit A: Iraq.

Oh, and keep in mind that if somebody HADN'T been carrying a lawful concealed pistol and was able to put a stop to this rampage, things would have been a lot worse.

[derby378]

141. DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

I refuse to be scared into signing my Constitutional rights away.

Amendment II Democrats

[Tin Man]

13. I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture a guess that the kid was an avid gamer

[PLF]

20. You might be right. This is a scenario right out of those games.

First person shoot 'em up.

[benEzra]

94. "This is a scenario right out of those games."

This is a scenario right out of those games.

I don't recall any shoot-innocents-at-the-mall levels in Halo or Half Life 2...or any other FPS game I've ever heard of, aside from one or two "games" created solely as publicity stunts. I believe you can walk through the mall in some of the Grand Theft Auto games (or ride your motorcycle through the mall, if you so choose), since it is unscripted, but there are no shoot-innocents-at-the-mall scenarios in any games that I know of.

Shoot the aliens boarding your spaceship, yes. Shoot the zombies trying to kill you, yes. Shoot shoppers at the mall, no.

[YOY]

25. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that has not a damn thing to do with this

Oh forget the limb...the studies prove it:

{snip}

Study Fails to Link Violent Video Games and Adolescent Violence

A study was conducted to study the widely presumed truism that those who prefer violent video games are more inclined to be violent. The study, of both girls and boys, revealed a significant relationship between a preference for violent games with thought problems, with a significant relationship to subscales Internalizing and Anxious-Depressed. However, what was expected—that relationships would be found with aggressive externalizing behaviors, including aggression—was not found. On the "Total Problems" subscale, children with very high preferences for violent games did have more clinically significant elevations than did those with only low preference. 2

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_video_games#Study_Fails_to_Link_Violent_Video_Games_and_Adolescent_Violence

{snip}

Sorry, but you'' have to look elsewhere for the cause/scapegoat: Poor parenting. Mental illness + access to firearms. Bullying. Lack of hope. Constrictive conservative environment. etc...

[Tin Man]

26. Studies? You cite only one (unidentified) study. How about this one?

-snip-

However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that each of these help learning - active involvement improves learning, rewards increase learning, and repeating something over and over increases learning.

Drs. Anderson and Gentile's research shows that children are spending increasing amounts of time playing video games - 13 hours per week for boys, on average, and 5 hours per week for girls (Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, under review; Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). A 2001 content analyses by the research organization Children Now shows that a majority of video games include violence, about half of which would result in serious injuries or death in the 'real' world. Children often say their favorite video games are violent. What is the result of all this video game mayhem?

Dr. Anderson and colleagues have shown that playing a lot of violent video games is related to having more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Furthermore, playing violent games is also related to children being less willing to be caring and helpful towards their peers. Importantly, research has shown that these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004).

-snip-

From the American Psychological Assocation website. link: http://www.psychologymatters.org/videogames.html

[YOY]

27. My citation : (right there on the wikipedea link)...read the whole article please

^ Funk, Jeanne B., Hagan, Jill, Schimming, Jackie, Bullock, Wesley A., Buchman, Debra D., Myers, Melissa. "Aggression and Psychopathology in Adolescents With a Preference for Violent Electronic Games" Aggressive Behavior 2002. Vol 28, No 2, pp 134-144.

Funny, according to Drs. Anderson and Gentile we should be awash in blood right now! I find it odd that they have no actual connections to violent crime and video games, but do cite 'aggressive tendencies'. Yet, as pointed out in Bowling For Columbine, if violent video games cause such violent crimes, why isn't Japan a raging pit of violence?

And if you really feel the way you do, this is your man!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

Besides all of this, we don't even know why this 18-year-old went ballistic.

[Tin Man]

32. No guns in Japan. Plus very different cultural and societal values - base on conformity.

[YOY]

35. But back to what I concluded. We still do not know who this guy was.

n/t

[slackmaster]

36. One thing is obvious about him

He was a nutjobbie.

[YOY]

37. Agreed wholeheartedly.

n/t

[Tin Man]

40. Agreed. And for the record, I never claimed gaming drove him nuts.

But I suspect that violent video games might have a hand in eliciting these types of scenarios from behaviorally challenged and/or mentally disturbed people.

[Irreverend IX]

143. Yay, nanny-statism! nt

[Swede]

39. I'd bet it's the rock 'n roll music.

:shrug:

[Robb]

48. I blame the dancing

...And, as I do whenever possible, I also blame Kevin Bacon.

[Akoto]

42. As a game programmer ...

May I ask why you think so? I certainly don't contribute to games as a means of causing this sort of incident, nor do my colleagues.

I'd say it's likelier that there was an underlying psychological problem. The vast majority of gamers, I'd hazard to say, do not play a game involving guns and then go shoot somebody.

Heck, I'm not simply an avid gamer, I work on the games themselves. The assumption that being an avid gamer leads to real violence should mean that I'm a terrible person who's committed all sorts of crimes. Of course, I have about as spotless a record as one could imagine, and am a very gentle person. :)

[Tin Man]

116. I'm not blaming the game... after all, the game didn't kill those people - the kid did.

To me, it seems VERY likely that kid had serious mental problems. Sane people don't go to the mall and start murdering perfect strangers.

And it wasn't a game that single-handedly created his illness; he had problems before he first sat down with a PlayStation. But I'm guessing that playing Doom and Resident Evil didn't help his mental state much. That was the nature of my speculation in my first post above.

Anyway, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Games serve a valid purpose: entertainment. Banning games to prevent something like this from happening is akin to banning cars because then, nobody would be killed in car accidents. It's a fucked-up world, and sometimes shit happens. Too many variables in this world to understand the complexity of relationships between cause and effect. As I said above, the game didn't kill those people - it was a lot of things that came together in the wrong way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. I'm gonna go out on a limb and venture a guess that the kid had a gun

Really, blaming video games is even stupider than blaming law abiding gun owners.

[Tin Man]

117. see my #116 above

[BOSSHOG]

14. Obviously the solution is to arm all shoppers as they walk into the mall

A salute to the second amendment if you will. All shoppers should be notified that if in anyway they feel threatened just to open that sucker up and shoot whoever the fuck they think has offended them for whatever reason. That's exactly what James Madison intended as a father of our constitution. For a more indepth explanation just ask any "conservative."

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. Or better yet......

just have the cops shoot anyone who is wearing a trench coat.:sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

17. Gun control or not

I had to womder if this kid was one of the "lost boys"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/14/lost_boys/index.html

[mainegreen]

18. Interesting thought. n/t

[redqueen]

52. That is so sad and wrong.

What the hell is wrong with some people?

[w4rma]

76. If that is the case, then I blame polygamy. (nt)

[brentspeak]

19. So how did this psycho kid get access to his guns?

[pinniped]

21. Where are the legions of licensed concealed firearms owners....

that are supposed to stop these sort of attacks in their tracks?

[jollyreaper2112]

23. obvious answer

We still don't have enough of them. Quick, let's arm more citizens! You know what they say, an armed society is a polite society. Remember the Old West and how everybody walked around with open firearms? Everybody was polite, yessir! No problems there. Guns encouraged a civil and reasonable discourse.

[slackmaster]

29. It appears that an off-duty police officer with a concealed weapon stopped him

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660195049,00.html

[brentspeak]

51. A police officer. That's the key phrase.

[slackmaster]

63. Um, what's your point?

Off duty police officers intervene in crimes quite often.

[RamboLiberal]

136. And it just as easily could've been a private citizen

with a concealed weapons permit. It's a shame a nutcase with a gun killed these people, but given that the nutcases can have weapons I'm glad I have a CCW.

[Towelie]

72. Didn't you hear? People like you are making it so only criminals and cops can carry guns. nt

[pinniped]

99. What?

?

[drumz4hire]

140. As I stated before...

a permit holder cannot carry into any place that is posted as
forbiding weapons

So while any licensed CW holder was prohibited from carrying, the
bad guy obviously wasn't

Luckily those restrictions don't apply to law-enforcement, on duty
or otherwise

[nebenaube]

24. here's another thought...

Suppose the christian right has really gone to far this time. Consider this: Faced with a shattered belief system (shredded constitution) and the newly founded dystopia where he has little employment prospect beyond enlisting and going off to die for a senseless and illegal war; a pre-emptive war that has been packaged and sold as none-other than god's will, i.e. the self-fullfilling prohecy of arrmageddon; this kid finally snapped and lashed out.

I suppose there are going to be more incidents like this. I also suppose that we will continue to view it as common crime.

Somehow I'm sure that the infamous "shot heard round the world" was originally disregarded as houligans/terrorists by the Tories.

[jhasp]

47. or here's yet another through....

He could have been just a screwed up teen that just broke up with his girlfriend and "nobody gets him"...

Trying to blame every little social ill on the current executive is silly. Legitimately blaming every little social ill on the current executive, regardless of party, means that they have too much power.

[davsand]

41. Stronger (or more) gun laws can't solve mental health issues.

Maybe it is just because the media is quicker to report this kind of stuff, but it seems to me that more and more events like this are happening. If it isn't kids taking guns to school or snipers on highways and in bell towers, it is somebody walking onto work and blasting away or some guy terrorizing an entire town.

In darn near every case, there seems to have been somebody out there saying ahead of time "this dude is capable of killing a bunch of people" and nobody listened or did anything about it. I'm willing to bet that there are more than a few people out there in our world that are in either a workplace or a neighborhood where they feel there is a potential for somebody to go "postal."

I'm also willing to bet that if you've said anything you've been treated with some kind of platitude or maybe even outright scorn because that seems to be how our system deals with serious mental illness that can't be treated with drugs.

I'm not advocating for mental screening for everyone, nor am I thinking it is a good idea that somebody could get labeled a potential serial killer based on the say-so of one or two people.

I don't honestly know what will protect us all from this kind of crazy, but I'm willing to state that ignoring it and hoping it is not gonna happen just doesn't seem to be working too well for us. I'm seeing a lot of head scratching and people saying "Uhhh, we had no idea ______ was capable of doing this," when you just KNOW somebody probably DID know it could happen.

My heart goes out to that community and to everyone who was impacted by this.



Laura

[primavera]

46. No, that's true, but...

... offering free access to lethal weapons to a population which includes a significant percentage of people who, for various reasons, including mental health issues, are unfit to handle that responsibility creates a pretty dangerous situation.

[brentspeak]

53. Yeah, but effective gun control can lessen the number of times these shooting sprees occur

[piedmont]

58. Ok, what measure would have stopped this particular incident?

[primavera]

61. Well, in the UK...

...where firearms are outlawed, chances are this guy would never have had the weapon he used to commit these murders. Likewise, in Germany, where liberal gun laws do allow private ownership of firearms, at least one has to document a bona fide need and use for a firearm, belong to a gun club, pass rigorous safety examinations, obtain costly permits, and voluntarily submit to routine inspections to confirm that the gun is being safely stored and properly used, the chances would again be much lower that someone suffering from mental illness would have free access to the weapons needed to perpetrate a crime such as this.

[piedmont]

65. In other words, ban all guns from private ownership.

I do not trust any form of government enough to allow it total hegemony over the people, especially not as a reactionary measure to isolated events like this one. Good luck getting the 2nd Amendment repealed.

[benEzra]

66. Dunblane occurred under VERY strict controls...

and a nut in the UK could still go on a shooting spree tomorrow with a sniper rifle (which are still legal in the UK). Difference is, the UK apparently does a better job dealing with mental illness, and in socializing people into not wantonly harming others (though there are some growing cracks in that monolith in the past few years).

Again, in the United States, guns are ALWAYS going to be available to the law-abiding. This guy used a pump shotgun; John Kerry owns a pump shotgun, for crying out loud. Even Sarah Brady herself bought her son a bolt-action deer rifle (aka sniper rifle) for her son one Christmas.

So you can joust with the ban-guns windmill, or you can address the root causes of violence that American progressives have always considered more important than what the law-abiding are allowed to own. Those approaches are mutually exclusives, as the DLC learned the hard way in 1994.

[primavera]

70. No argument there

You're absolutely right, no gun control measure is going to eliminate societal violence and a society does absolutely need to look at the underlying root causes behind that violence. But I do think that allowing a society characterized by chronic violence to have all but unrestricted access to incredibly dangerous weapons makes about as much sense as allowing an infant to play in a room full of razor blades. Restricting access has to be a part of the bigger solution.

[Sapere aude]

79. That makes absolutely no sense. You will get compliance from the law abiding but not from a kook

dead set on going on a killing spree.

Criminals do not obey laws. The guy in this case would get a gun somehow. Steal it or in the underground market.

It always amazes me how some people think that legislation is the way to get things done. Just pass enough laws and we will all live peaceful safe lives. Well my friend, life doesn't work that way. It never has. You may pass new laws and feel good about it but gun violence will still happen. Then you will call for more new and tougher laws.

You can't legislate your way to peace and happiness.

[primavera]

80. Really?

So you're a true anarchist? There's no point in legislating anything; no need for laws; rape, murder, theft, no need to criinalize any of it? Interesting! Huh, well, okay then, from that starting assumption, you're right, none of what I suggest makes any sense. Personally, though, I just don't believe that a society can function without laws, so I'm afraid we're not on the same page there. But thanks for your point of view.

[piedmont]

83. A gun is a powerful tool that can be mis-used, just like a knife or a hammer.

You can use it in ways that don't cause anyone harm, or you can use it to commit acts that are already crimes. I possess several guns, but you won't see me using them to commit a crime. Why? Because I'm a decent person who just wants to live and let live. Why ban a tool just because some people abuse it? Those types would just move on to misusing another powerful tool instead-- or producing their own guns. It's the behavior that needs to be prevented, not the possession of the tool.

[primavera]

86. True enough

... but I can't kill dozens of people from a safe distance in a matter of seconds with a hammer.

[hogwyld]

100. I agree with you on outlawing firearms

Unfortunately, the gun kooks here will do anything to keep their phallic symbols. One way to make guns useless is to outlaw all ammunition, and ammunition producing supplies such as primers, powder, casings, bullets, and other reloading supplies. They can then swing their "prized" guns like a club. Hopefully, with our continued education attemts, we will have a disarmed society within a generation or 2. Look at how hunting has dropped in recent years. I am always amazed at the civility of the Japanese, and they are'nt armed for WW3.

[piedmont]

102. Repeat after me: "Prohibition never has, and never will work."

Smear those you disagree with any way you please, but don't fool yourself into believing that authoritarian measures such as a war on drugs, war on alcohol, or war on guns would ever do anything but waste money and generate more crime. Neither guns nor ammunition require large, expensive facilities to produce them:
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/homemadeammo.shtml

And in case you're wondering, smokeless powder is certainly nothing a home chemist couldn't produce.

We should focus on why people kill, not the means they choose.

[Porcupine]

119. has there EVER been a shooting spree by a home reloader?

I'm just wondering here. I don't seem to recall much in the way of shooting sprees by home reloaders. I think tagging all manufactured bullets, and shotgun shells with a unique ID would be sufficient gun controls for me.

If you have a gun and you run out of ammo you order more tagged with your unique ID. Once you have the ammo it's strictly YOUR problem. If somebody gets killed by that ammunition you get manslaughter at a minimum unless it was adjudicated a legal shoot.

We're never going to get rid of the guns in the US. Just a fact. But we can force people to claim their shoots or form their own bullets and casings. If gangbangers wanted to do that it would be easy to trace all their bullets back to a single shop by analyzing the lead/trace elements mix.


Guns don't kill people; bullets traveling at high velocity kill people. Restrict THOSE.

Just a thought.

[piedmont]

127. How the heck would tagged bullets help in this incident?

In most of these shooting sprees, we know EXACTLY who pulled the trigger.

And again, if we tagged all commercially sold ammo then black-market sources of "anonymous" ammo would immediately spring up. I don't think you understand how easy it is to make all the components of a bullet. It's MUCH easier than the chemistry involved in a meth lab.

"...trace all their bullets back to a single shop by analyzing the lead/trace elements mix. "

Even if you did trace many bullets back to a single shop, that's all you would have-- that single shop, and none of the shooters.

[benEzra]

105. Not going to happen...

the gun kooks here will do anything to keep their phallic symbols

Do you really hate DU'ers that much who disagree with you on the gun issue, or are you just throwing out insults for the heck of it?

You realize that half of gun owners are Dems and indies, and around a third are women, yes?

Keep pushing the "We Hate Gun Owners" meme; Karl Rove will thank you for it.

One way to make guns useless is to outlaw all ammunition, and ammunition producing supplies such as primers, powder, casings, bullets, and other reloading supplies. They can then swing their "prized" guns like a club.

Sure, just like 80 years of absolute prohibition of diacetyl morphine has eliminated all traces of it from our society. Oh, wait, it's easier to get than prescription foot powder...

BTW, merely raising the price on over-10-round pistol magazines, plus slapping a few cosmetic restrictions on civilian rifles with protruding handgrips, cost the House and Senate in 1994, and arguably two presidencies ('00 and '04). What do you think the backlash against an ammunition ban would be, when around eighty million people of voting age own and shoot guns?

Ever hear of the Temperance Party? You'd have the Democratic party following in its footsteps. No thanks.

Hopefully, with our continued education attemts, we will have a disarmed society within a generation or 2. Look at how hunting has dropped in recent years.

Hunting is irrelevant (only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter). Gun ownership has trended slightly upward since the early 1990's, not downward.

[Dean Martin]

106. phallic symbol? absurd

Here's the ridiculous "phallic symbol" comment again. I know just as money women that carry guns for protection as men.

I have a bad back, a bad neck, and if someone attacks me of my fiance, a gun is all I have to protect us. I can't afford to live in a gated community, or have an alarm system, or have a bodyguard or someone to drive me to the ATM. I have to rely on myself for protection, and I have to protect her. As long as there is crime, the guns are staying. I'm not letting someone beat me up or kill me then rape and kill my girlfriend because someone thinks guns are a 'phallic symbol'.

[piedmont]

101. Humans are clever-- if you want to kill people you'll find a way.

Pipe bombs, running people down with a car, bow and arrow, etc. can all cause mass casualties. Banning guns mainly deprives law-abiding citizens of their beneficial use, and probably would not deprive criminals of their use in committing crimes.

[Dean Martin]

107. let's ban cars!

From what I see on the interstates every day, I don't have a major problem with banning cars.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

158. No but I can kill or injure dozens of people with my car in a few seconds.

N/T

[primavera]

159. Apples and oranges

This whole car analogy is so often thrown up by gun nuts, yet it's such a fundamentally flawed argument, you'd think they'd have given it up years ago.

For the car analogy to hold water, you would have to accept as a starting assumption that guns and cars were on equal footing in terms of their utility and socioeconomic benefits. But such is not the case. Very, very few people would argue with the claim that automobiles perform a function in our society and economy which could not be easily replicated by any other means. In contrast, a very great many people would argue that the function guns perform is one which people could live without just fine. Whether or not you share that view personally is immaterial; the point is that no broad consensus of opinion exists regarding the value of guns. Guns and cars are therefore not equivalent with respect to their utility and comparisons between them are therefore meaningless.

[-..__...]

160. Actually, it's the gun-grabbers that use the car analogy quite frequently.

Don't tell me that you've never heard or read something similar to the following statements...

"Automobiles are required to be registered in this country, so why shouldn't guns also be registered"?

Or...

"If drivers have to be licensed and pass a safety test, is there any reason gun owners shouldn't be licensed and pass a safety test as well"?

Well lets see; if one agrees with those statements, then the following should apply as well...

There's no criminal background check for buying, possessing or selling a car; why should background checks be required for firearms? Why not require a background check for purchasing an automobile?

A 16 year old can legally purchase and drive an automobile and bring it to school. why shouldn't that same 16 year old be allowed to purchase and bring a firearm to school?

A driving infraction will result in the issuance of a ticket and small fine; if someone has a minor
firearms violation, they should only have to pay a small fine as well.

A police chief (in may issue states), has wide discretion in issuing CCW permits and can place restrictions on the licensee and revoke it for the slightest infraction. Why shouldn't police chiefs have the same discretion with regard to drivers licenses?

States and municipalities can regulate and ban the possession of certain types of firearms. Why shouldn't they be able to decide what kind/type of automobile a person can own or drive?

Felons (and other prohibited persons), can not purchase or posses firearms or ammunition (they can't even handle them). Shouldn't those same people be prohibited from owning a car or driving?

There's more, but you get the general idea.

I agree with this...

"Guns and cars are therefore not equivalent with respect to their utility and comparisons between them are therefore meaningless."

The comparison/analogy is foolish, but it can cut both ways.

So, when are the Brady types and those of similar ilk going to stop using the car/firearms analogy?

[Karenina]

59. The mental health issue...

American citizens, individually and collectively, have SEVERE mental health issues brought on by the INCREDIBLE cognitive dissonance the society presents. I don't really even know where to begin to express what I've observed in my half century on this planet. The last 6 years are beyond description. "America is a SICK PUPPY" is just a cliche, but encapsulates the TRUTH.

The random violence is an indicator of the "democracy" America purports to export. Just look around a bit. You can see it EVERYWHERE and in every place that there is a significant American presence.

JCrowley posted a map that showed Ami MIC involvement from 1945 on. Look at the map, then look at what has become of those countries.

Microcosm=macrocosm... Fucking hell, kids, one could say it's been like this FOREVER, but this observer can't help but feel it's becoming exponentially worse...

[Psephos]

96. See post #82 n/t

[Monty215]

98. Not mental health

This most likely is a jihad religion issue. Not a gun issue, not anything else.

[Justitia]

122. How do you know what his religion was? -eom

[rodeodance]

45. AFP Ten dead in US after two separate shooting sprees

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070213/ts_alt_afp/uscrime_070213143756;_ylt=AgetpuuqS9i_jRLIbPjrz6nMWM0F


Ten dead in US after two separate shooting sprees

Tue Feb 13, 9:37 AM ET

SALT LAKE CITY (AFP) - A gunman armed with a pump-action shotgun killed five people in a shooting spree through a crowded shopping mall here, as four others died in a separate shooting in a different US city.



Dressed in a trench coat and carrying a backpack, the gunman entered the busy shopping mall in Salt Lake City late Monday and opened fire with the shotgun, police said.

Six people, including the shooter, died.

At about the same time in the eastern city of Philadelphia, a lone gunman entered an office complex and opened fire, leaving at least four people dead, including the attacker.

A fifth person was seriously wounded and rushed to hospital, local media reported.

[ohio2007]

82. Police identify gunman as 18-year-old Bosnian

<snip>
Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian
<snip>
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660195221,00.html

I suspect his parents were the ones receiving refugee status.

[Monty215]

97. islamic

Bosnian muslim.

[ShortnFiery]

104. We have much more to worry about with returning Christian Combat Troops

It's going to get interesting in society within a year or two ... about the time when those who have been discharged from the military with a "Personality Disorder" (most likely termed "Anti-Social") begin to de-compensate. :wow: :scared:

[Monty215]

109. We'll see

If they do Beslan, 911, 311, and other atrocities.. They'll have a lot to catch up with.

[ShortnFiery]

111. Now that's just IMO, fear mongering at it's most desperate.

Wow, I'm amazed. ;)

[Monty215]

112. More amazed

than you saying potential vets will cause more (or any) problems than actual ones caused by jihadists? Now that is amazing.

[ShortnFiery]

114. No, not at all.

You are spreading fear by linking Terrorism STRAIGHT to the Islamic Religion - Koranic Jihadism? :thumbsdown:

Really, take it somewhere else please. I'm a military vet but I know from experience that those who have been in combat have a difficult time readjusting to society. Those include my Father and Brother. My dad had horrific nightmares. My brother? He committed suicide on the installment plan with alcohol. All people who experience horrors that are not meant for humans to process, are effected in a negative way for life. The vast majority of combat veterans are able to adapt to society mores, but a few "act out."

In other words, I'm not being disrespectful to combat veterans. What I'm trying to convey is that the TACTIC of "terrorism" has been around since the beginning of the human race. Those who terrorize are NOT monolithic but come from a variety of backgrounds and religions.

Kindly stop the fear-mongering?

The World can NOT be at war with "a tactic." :thumbsdown:

[Monty215]

118. Ok

It's all fear mongering, there's no terrorism or jihadist goal of domination. You win. I guess.

On edit, I gotta wonder. Do you realize that jihadists are trying to blow up NYC tunnels and other things all the time? They are attacking with minor and major efforts. 9/11 was a major one, so was Beslan. Why people defend koranic jihadist terrorism is simply beyond my capability to understand. Can you explain?

[ShortnFiery]

125. Hyperbole much?

Reading through this thread, it seems that, you sure are fond of the terms "Jihadist" and "9/11" seemingly almost as much as our King George. :shrug:

Forget religion, by far these two examples are of INDIVIDUALS acting alone. How you can, in your very first few posts, get haughty and insist that it's a result of "Koranic Jihadism" :wtf: is shameless FEAR-MONGERING.

I suggest that you consider sticking to the FACTS of each case presented within THIS THREAD before jumping the shark and screaming, "Islamic Terrorism."

It's our Idiot Leader's irrational fears and fear-mongering that has started this INSANE so called "War on Terror." Nothing good can come of spreading hatred and fear of A TACTIC that's been around since the beginning of humanity. And no, terrorism was NOT created, by a long shot, by Radical Islam. :eyes:

I'm not defending terrorism, just noting that it comes in many forms and is initiated by many different types of groups and/or individuals ... many of them happen NOT to be Muslim or Islamic."

[smitty]

132. That's the same crap I heard about Vietnam veterans.

Got anything to back it up?

[ShortnFiery]

150. Please read Post #114 above.

"The vast majority of combat veterans are able to adapt to society mores, but a few "act out."

As a graduate student in the late 1980s, I researched Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Combat Veterans. In addition to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, we studied Israeli Soldiers who had demonstrated the constellation of symptoms that compose this Diagnosis.

[Justitia]

120. Where are you getting his religion from? Provide a link, I haven't seen that. -eom

[Monty215]

123. Here

http://www.serbianna.com/news/2007/01204.shtml

[Justitia]

124. mmmm...."muslim" was in the title, but nowhere in the article, what's up w/that?

And the places that I find that mention that site are all RWers.

Curioser and curiouser.

[barb162]

154. then here's a decidely left wing source which says "Muslim"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6417256,00.html
``We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists,'' the boy's aunt, Ajka Omerovic, said Wednesday at the family's house.

[ShortnFiery]

126. So because the 18 y.o. was a Bosnian Muslim you jump to the conclusion

that he's part of the global conspiracy of "Koranic Jihadism" against Americans? :crazy:

[MilesColtrane]

129. You've got to learn to read the whole article.

"Police have no motive in the killing"

So you take it upon yourself to assign one.

I personally choose to believe he converted that morning and was on a Biblical Crusade of fire to dispatch sinners to God to be judged.

See how silly?

[barb162]

155. see mine #154

[ama]

145. Utah killer 'survived Bosnia war'

A Bosnian immigrant who went on a shooting spree in Salt Lake City may have been affected by childhood war experiences, friends and family say.
Sulejman Talovic, 18, was shot dead by police after he had killed five people and wounded four on Monday.

As a small boy, he fled his besieged village and briefly took refuge in Srebrenica, two years before 8,000 Muslims were massacred there.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364677.stm