2 injured when man opens fire at SoCal school

[MichaelHarris]

"I just started yelling him, 'Why are you shooting kids?'" Chandler said. "His face was in the dirt, his teeth were in the dirt, and he just grunted....He was saying something about the president, he was ranting"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gpgt5xBUGEXRFmhwZpPGDQ-6pZNQD9INS6AG1?docId=D9INS6AG1

[lawodevolution]

1. Gun control groups are very happy about this news they...

Should have a few new members soon

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

6. And people on your side of the argument are very happy about your new anecdote

It pisses me off to see things like this in the news but this one is suspicious. If a form of corruption can help out the financial health or cause of a group and such group is made up of many thousands of members there will be at least some individual members willing to engage in such corruption. Getting kids shot at would aid your cause and gun control groups finances and I guarantee there to be at least one gun hater willing to get some kids killed so that we might arrive at the end point that they fundamentally believe to be the formula for a better world with total gun control.

[Zoeisright]

7. You took the words right out of my mouth!

Thank you.

[SteveM]

69. One mouth to another? Pheww! Stinky. nt

[lawodevolution]

2. Let's just hope the gun control fundamentalists aren't trying to coach

The mentally insane to commit these acts and also providing them with their weapons, this would after all promote increased membership and donations to gun control groups and a fatter paycheck for those who make their living that way

Maybe the ends justifies the means for them

[geckosfeet]

4. Speaking of the 'mentally insane' (your phrase, I am just borrowing)

this is gun obsessed fringe nonsense - and I assume you posted it with some sarcastic intent

[lawodevolution]

9. Let's say you have a million people who believe in a cause

And a particularly disturbing act would help further the cause by producing an affect. Among that million people there will be some willing to commit the act

It is within the best interests of gun control groups to increase the murder rate, increase the gun accident rate and to bring about mass shootings.

It is within the best interest of pro gun people to reduce crime, prevent mass shootings and accidents which is why I go out of my way to teach new gun owners gun safety.

Someone posted this up for a political affect and when I post up some random conspiracy theory about gun control groups you become very angry and claim I am bad for making political statements in response to the original political propaganda of the OP.

[geckosfeet]

14. I'm sorry. It is nonsense to postulate that gun control advocates want murder rates to increase.

I am not angry. But your stated positions are at all odds with every reality that I have experienced in my 55 years.

I am a gun owner and enjoy the sport. But I certainly see the benefit and need for gun control and regulation.

But I am completely mystified at how anyone can seriously postulate that gun control groups or anyone for that matter, would find it in their interest to increase murder rates.

[PavePusher]

18. It's no more nonsense than any other conspiricy theory.

And there's plenty to pick from around this web site.

[geckosfeet]

24. So what's your point? That it's ok to post jibberish and pretend it means something?

[lawodevolution]

26. it's not jibberish

I think we need people to start to observe these incidents and consider other possibilities to the reason they are increasing. Within any population of 2000 people I would bet at least one is capable of great evil, and if temptation exists, I do not trust that among millions of human beings who hate gun owners and guns despite all the evidence that guns are not the problem are all going to avoid corruption. It is certain that there are corrupt individuals among your cause and I've discussed what the corruption would involve. While it is also certain that there are corrupt among the members of my cause, but their desire is to reduce crime, accident rates and mass shootings, so I'm sure there are some who carry in places they should not thinking that they might stop a mass shooting. This is a topic I've been interested in for a while. Does the NRA really want to win the gun control debate, do they really want to erase their own jobs? No. So as predicted they will half and quarter ass their job in order to not destroy their opposition. I still support the NRA, but after a while this situation will simply become two organizations faking their debate so that they can maintain their income. My money could go to better things like what I used to donate to, planting trees.

[geckosfeet]

27. You present not a shred of evidence and try to convince people that gun control advocates

use murder to further their goals.

That is jibberish.

[lawodevolution]

32. I never said they use murder

they might have the temptation to artificially increase murder and accident rates in order to create or protect their arguments and their anecdotes, after all they use every other underhanded form of argument possible including use of anecdote to fake a crisis and deleting the opposite side's views (such as on the brady campaign facebook page). I just said I hope someone is not coaching the homeless or mentally insane to go shoot people up and say crazy things while they are shooting. I'm not accusing anyone of any particular act.

[oneshooter]

33. Tou can't see his point, because his hat is too tight. n/t

[MichaelHarris]

34. you really

need a new put down, this one is getting real old. are you like 12 or something?

[shadowrider]

35. Are you tired of using senseless tragedy as a forum for advancing your anti-gun agenda? n/t

[MichaelHarris]

36. tell me

do you guys mind using tragedy when promoting "good" shootings? Remember that for every kid shot for some senseless crime a mother cries. Also, I own guns so I don't have an "anti-gun" agenda, I have a "admit there is a problem" agenda. Your reply shows you are ok with the death by gun levels in America.

[shadowrider]

38. LOL how you can deduce I'm ok with gun level deaths is beyond me.

There is no such thing as a "good" shooting. Someone somewhere lost their life. Given that, I DO support citizens being able to defend themselves/their families when/if confronted by a bad guy intent on doing them harm. If you want to call that a "good" shooting (your term, not mine), so be it.

[MichaelHarris]

42. and yet

I never see you go after the posters of the "good shootings". I wonder why that is?

[shadowrider]

52. Already answered. n/t

[Pavulon]

43. Legalize drugs and make mental health care free, fixed. move on, stop fucking

with my rights because you are to lazy or scared to address root cause.

[one-eyed fat man]

46. Mama tried............

Every kid shot while attempting a senseless crime learned a lesson his momma failed to teach him.

[SteveM]

71. OH, Michael! I missed you and your internet...

punking. Not really. Your shit is so old the gloss has gone off, and the flies have left.

[lawodevolution]

25. it would help the cause of gun control groups

and many people make their livings on gun control. Sorry, but a conspiracy theory isn't wrong just because you don't like it. Yes, it is plausable that within a few million people who hate guns that a few are willing to go to the extreme in order to advance the cause, and listen in previous posts are the changes in crime, accident and mass shooting rates that would advance your cause.

[SteveM]

70. "It's just a matter of time," gloated one gun-controller re: the next "massacre."

[Zoeisright]

5. Thanks for helping me update my lists.

Good god.

[lawodevolution]

16. Closed minded is closed minded

I don't blame you for wanting to avoid a debate with me but I am sure glad you don't have the ability to eliminate my right to express my views.

[Bold Lib]

8. Ah. . . another Gun Free Zone success.

My heart goes out to the victims of this horrible incident. this incident, and others like it only prove that "Gun Free Zones" are only Free Fire Zones for criminal intent on murder and mayhem. PLEASE, get involved and allow people that can (and choose) to legally get a CHL to be able to carry on campus.

[MichaelHarris]

10. did you notice

that is also an example of capturing and individual without the use of a gun? Did you miss that? Also one other point. It's a very good example of yet another crime NOT stopped by someone with a carry permit.

On edit, you did see that this about children right? If not, are you suggesting that school children should be issued carry permits?

[lawodevolution]

12. Nope children should not be issued carry permits

They are not allowed to be in possession of a gun, obviously.

[Bold Lib]

13. Ha ha ha. Yep, I figured you'd come back with some crap about school kids.

You really should go back and read exactly what I wrote. If teachers or administrators go through the classes to get a CHL then they should be allowed to carry on campus if they so chose.

Yes, it is an example of another crime not stopped by someone with a carry permit, because it is NOT legal at this time. Again, another example of how "Gun free Zones" are actually "free fire zones".

This is an example of why CHL holds should be allowed to carry and how current "gun free zones" are a failure. Please keep posting them.

[MichaelHarris]

15. then why

did you make such an idiotic comment?

Your comment, "Yes, it is an example of another crime not stopped by someone with a carry permit, because it is NOT legal at this time. Again, another example of how "Gun free Zones" are actually "free fire zones".

You do know I can post 500 crimes in states with carry permits and not one was stopped by a weapon permit holder right?

[Euromutt]

19. It doesn't make a difference to THIS PARTICULAR CASE

Under California state law, it is illegal for a private citizen to carry a firearm (loaded or unloaded) within 1000' of a K-12 school, unless they have a California CCW license, which in SoCal are about as common as hens' teeth. It doesn't matter how many crimes weren't prevented by CCW permit holders in "shall issue" states, that does not alter the facts pertaining to this particular incident, and is therefore a red herring.

And evne if it weren't, what gets covered by the news media is not a representative sample of incidents involving firearms. A defensive gun use in which no shots were fired, and nobody got injured, and no crime was completed isn't newsworthy; surely that isn't too hard to you to grasp? What photos would you, as a press photographer, take of an incident in which, essentially, nothing happened? Because that's what stopping a crime in progress means: by preventing the completion, you're causing the crime to essentially not happen, and if there's no brass on the floor by the end of it, it has to be a very slow news day for any news medium to report it.

[Bold Lib]

37. Here's a clue. There were adults on that campus too. Maybe you can figure that out now.

Go right ahead, it does not prove anything - well maybe to someone lacking any logic or mental ability that only "thinks" with their feelings.

On edit. I'll trump your made up, pulled out of ass "stat" of 500 with the very real and peer reviewed stat that firearms are used apx. TWO MILLION times each year in defense by law abiding gun owners.

Have a nice day now.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[SteveM]

72. ...It's some of his old stuff, the sheen is gone, the flies have left.

[RSillsbee]

20. I wasn't aware that a handgun cary permit made one a crime fighter

I don't carry a gun to stop crime (in the broader sense). I carry a gun for the defense of my self and family.

[Glassunion]

22. Sorry, those are his highness's rules

Apparently all CCWers should be out doing nothing but stopping mass shootings.

Apparently SELF defense does not count in his book.

[shadowrider]

23. In the convoluted logic though, IF a CCW'er stops a mass shooting

before all the damage is done, the incident never happened, therefore the CCW'er didn't stop anything.

Is that about right?

:crazy:

[Euromutt]

28. Heads I win, tails you lose (n/t)

[Callisto32]

39. What about teachers, administrators, support staff?

We BG check these people and entrust them with our children for 7 hours a day 180 days a year.

Maybe we can trust them with firearms?

[Bold Lib]

40. Yeah, he kinda dismissed all the adults on the campus didn't he? How about the vice-principle

that stopped a mass school shooting with his own gun?
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

CHL's should be allowed on campus for those that choose to carry. The current policy of "gun free zones" is a PROVEN disaster.

[proteus_lives]

11. Ban schools in SoCal. It's the only way we'll be safe.

[Euromutt]

29. Hell, let's just ban SoCal

Or at least the greater San Diego area.

[RSillsbee]

17. How does the criminal mis-use of a firearm relate to me?

Other than to provide convincing evidence (note this happened in the state with the strictest gun laws in the country)that gun control laws have no measurable bearing on crime what ever.

What do you see as the solution to this problem

[rrneck]

21. How do we know you won't do the same thing? nt

[slackmaster]

30. Another crazy homeless person, off his meds

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/08/carlsbad-police-respond-to-reports-of-shots-at-a-s/

[rrneck]

31. Nope. The gun made him crazy.

And considering the OP, not just any gun. Only a gun that he doesn't like.

[Bold Lib]

41. I wonder if he would have done this at Harrold Independent School District in Texas?

I somehow doubt he would have selected that campus.

[MichaelHarris]

44. let's see

how well does carrying a firearm really work:

"Following a 50-Year Low, Law Enforcement Fatalities Surge 43 Percent During the First Half of 2010"

http://www.nleomf.org/newsroom/news-releases/2010-midyear-fatality-report.html

They all had weapons on them. Your bucket has no water man.

[Pavulon]

45. Stop, give up. Legalize drugs, and address root cause. Gun control as an issue

is done. There will never be another restrictive bill passed at the national level. The game is over.

[Bold Lib]

47. LMAO!!! FUNNY post.

You are comparing law enforcement with concealed carriers? That is a failed comparison on it's face. News flash: Apx. TWO MILLION defensive gun uses by law abiding gun owners every year.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

My "bucket has not water"? Your right, my bucket is filled with reality.


Edit to add: You ever hear of Joel Myrick?

[MichaelHarris]

48. you're

really going to laugh at the death of law enforcement officers?

[Bold Lib]

49. No,I laugh at you and your silly equivalencies. Fact: There are apx TWO MILLION defensive gun uses

every year by lawful gun owners.

I LMOA at your silliness. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!

On edit: Did you ever figure out who Joel Myrick is?

[Bold Lib]

50. So, did you ever figure out who Joel Myrick is?

[MichaelHarris]

51. so are you saying

there are over 2 million crimes in America each year that required a private citizen to defend themselves with a gun? Is that what guncite (hahhahahahah) wants us to believe? tell ya what sport, do a forum search I debunked the crap out of that factoid months ago. Two million violent crimes a year, LMFAO, hahahahahahahah. Guncite credible? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you decide.

With 2 million violent crimes requiring a private citizen to pull a firearm we have become the wild west LOL. Man, you really need wrap your head around that 2 million number. Do some statistics on it. There is not one shred of evidence to support that number. Do these people, 2 million, whip out their guns and not call the police? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH see why I'm laughing my ass off at you yet?

[Bold Lib]

54. OMG you can't even get a source notation right!! Plus you responded to the wrong post. LMFAO!!!

First the post you went off on your diatribe asked "So, did you ever figure out who Joel Myrick is?"
So, HAVE YOU?

Second, gunsite is NOT the source. They are the web site that did an article on Gery Kleck and his PEER REVIEWED research. I can guaranty you he did not include any knife incidents listed as gun incidents too.

"Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University (see overview). His research centers on violence and crime control with special focus on gun control and crime deterrence. Dr. Kleck is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991), and Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Aldine de Gruyter, 1997). He is also a contributor to the major sociology journals, and in 1993 Dr. Kleck was the winner of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology, for the book which made "the most outstanding contribution to criminology" in the preceding three years (for Point Blank)."
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

You seem to dismiss the two million lawful defensive gun uses because know one got hurt. Why is that? Do you really believe that a person HAS to be hurt in order for a person to lawfully use a gun for defensive? This is why your side is loosing the debate. You are not using any reason or logic. You WANT, and that is all you will accept - what YOU want and to Hell with reality, facts, or statistics.

Yes, there ARE apx two million defensive gun uses every year by lawful gun owners. Gery Kleck's work has been picked apart by the most rabid anti gun rights people out there and they have not been able to refute his findings. If you think you can please try. Gery Kleck's raw data is available to anyone that wants to review his methods. Go right ahead and try.

So, did you ever figure out who Joel Myrick is?

[MichaelHarris]

56. yeah

one case, a school principle. Now tell me did those 2 million not call the police? If they didn't where did the number come from? LOL, I can't wait for this, it's going to be hilarious.

[Bold Lib]

57. I'm not going to peer review his source material. If you have a problem with it then lets hear it.

You don't want to believe it but you cannot prove ANY of his findings wrong. Do it if you can but as I said before, the best have had their shot and couldn't do it. Try if you dare, Ha Ha Ha Ha.

That's TWO MILLION defensive gun uses every year by lawful gun owners. Peer reviewed and accepted as credible.

[MichaelHarris]

59. ahahahahaha

I've already done it, many times here on DU. You d realize even other forum members are staying away from that 2 million number right? Do you see a long line backing up your claim? That 2 million number has been proven wrong so many times that only an idiot would try and cite it.

[Bold Lib]

60. You can prove it wrong without a citation???? Now THAT'S funny!!!

Let's see the your "proof". LMFAO!!!

Let's see that peer review that has discredited it. I have not see one yet.

[shadowrider]

61. He doesn't need a citation. He said it's true, so it is.

:crazy:

[MichaelHarris]

63. hey

it's you number and post, prove it. My previous posts on this proved the number can't be real. Look them up. Any fool can see that if there were 2 million defenses uses a year then there would be a crime epidemic. The violent crime rates alone prove that the 2 million number can't be correct. I've done this all before. Prove your 2 million claim, show me where 2 million crimes that required defensive gun uses were reported. Who kept the records?

We both know the answers, either you'll say "in many cases the law abiding gun toting citizen didn't report his attempt to use deadly force" or "I can't provide all that data". Bottom line, the 2 million number is a wet dream, it's not real. Actual statistics involving violent crime disprove it. How many violent crimes were reported in America last year? How many reported crimes involved citizens stopping the crime with their own firearm? Answer those then you'll see how silly the 2 million number is.

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that someone defended themselves with their own firearm and not call law enforcement? If they did then the numbers don't match.Violent crime rates vs 2 million defensive gun uses? Hahahahahah laughable. Your number, your burden of proof. Good luck.

[Bold Lib]

67. I cited others proof. If you have a problem with Kleck's research then YOU

need to debunk it. So far all I'm hearing from you is that you don't believe it but you have no, zip, nada, empirical evidence that disputes Kleck's findings. Please, if you have ANY valid, factual information that calls into question his research, method, or findings then lets have it. Your opinion or flat out stubbornness in simply not believe his research does not establish any valid error or question of his work.

I actually expect people to believe research and findings that have been peer reviewed and VALIDATED; your opinion, not so much.

TWO MILLION defensive gun uses every year by law abiding gun owners. Game, set, match.

[shadowrider]

62. This one isn't. YOU say it ain't so, so YOU prove it wrong n/t

[MichaelHarris]

64. already have

are you now here to agree with the 2 million defensive uses claim? Is that a number you believe is real?

[rrneck]

65. Seems possible to me.

This is the total crime for 2008 in the United States.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html

Looks like a total of 222,998,824 crimes reported where one might use a firearm to defend oneself or one's property. That's everything from murder to robbery to plain old theft. That obviously doesn't include defensive firearms use not reported.

If even one percent of the reported crimes involve defense with a gun, that's 2,229,988 instances. Of those would be instances when an actual crime was committed, so somebody got murdered or raped which means the person using the gun (if they had one) lost. It also includes aggravated assaults, burglaries, robberies, property crimes and larceny where the person with the gun won and called the cops.

Given that I don't know how many people used a gun to defend themselves and didn't call the cops that one percent figure is perfectly believable. But I don't claim any expertise in statistics. What kind of numbers do you have?

[shadowrider]

68. I do, at a minimum n/t

[SteveM]

75. PUnking: It's what's for dinner. All full up yet?

[Euromutt]

66. Actually, the "2 million number" has never been proven wrong

It's based partly on the Kleck & Gertz study, which came up with an estimated 1.5-3.6 million DGUs annually with 2.55 million as the best estimate, and the Cook & Ludwig study which, using the same criteria but a smaller smaller sample size than Kleck & Gertz's study, produced a best estimate of 1.5 million persons performing DGUs annually. The "2 million number" falls within the confidence intervals of both studies.

In addition, Ikeda et al. in 1997 produced an estimate of 498,000 incidents annually in which a resident of a dwelling saw an intruder and scared the intruder off by displaying a firearm; the confidence intervals overlap readily with that of Kleck & Gertz, who came up with an estimated 900,000 incidents of this nature annually.

Then there were two telephone surveys performed by David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael in 1998, which came up with a best estimate of 900,000 DGUs annually; again, the confidence intervals (due to the low sample size) easily overlap with those of Kleck & Gertz.

There has been a large amount of speculation as to why the findings of these various studies might present an over-inflated estimate of the number of DGUs--particularly by the people with anti-gun agendas (Cook, Ludwig, Hemenway and Azrael) who produced them--but one thing nobody has ever provided is better evidence. And as has been noted, the objections on the part of Cook & Ludwig and Hemenway & Azrael that the methodology was really all wrong for determining the number of DGUs rings awfully hollow, given that they didn't decide it was wrong until after it produced results they didn't like. More importantly, they never subsequently produced research that would supported what they claimed would be a more accurate picture.

You can legitimately argue that the research was all done in the early to mid-1990s, when the violent crime rate was significantly higher than it is now, so there is a distinct possibility that the numbers of DGUs now are significantly lower than they were then. But even so, that doesn't invalidate the evidence for the "2 million number." Nobody has ever produced a shred of evidence, let alone proved, that Kleck & Gertz's findings were invalid. Tons of speculation from the College of It Stands To Reason, but no actual evidence.

[Bold Lib]

58. Just imagine how many lives could have been saved had other school staff

when it was needed. What a shame people keep endorsing the failed police of "gun free schools". The bad guys have already figured out that they are really free fire zones. Why can't those pushing for gun control realize it too?

[SteveM]

74. Ah, now I can see why the last name is...

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-Harris.

So much ha-ha-ha, you named yourself after your nervous -- very nervous -- laughter.

NOTE: "...see why I'm laughing my ass off at you yet?" Like art, if you have to explain it doesn't work.

[SteveM]

73. Some of that ol' time punking again? Yep. Dull. No flies.

[Euromutt]

53. In further news: Attention-grabbing headline betrays poor grasp of statistics

"Following a 50-Year Low, Law Enforcement Fatalities Surge 43 Percent During the First Half of 2010"
Let's have a look at the graph accompanying that article:


So this horrific "43% surge" has put the number of LEO deaths in the ~70-100 range, where they've been for most of the past 35 years. Well, that figures; any increase is relatively greater the lower the original number was. It's like the way a thinly populated rural county can suffer a 100% increase in the rape rate if a second rape occurs in any given year. Add 5 to 1 and you have a 500% increase; add 5 to 100 and you have a 5% increase.

Say, didn't we have a rash of similarly alarmist stories when the LEO deaths for 2008 came out? Dire warnings of massive increases in officer killings, when what was actually happening was the numbers returning to the median after two years of comparatively low numbers. Oddly, the people who held this up as evidence of a worsening situation were not inclined to trumpet the converse when the number of LEO killings dropped to (as stated) "a 50 year-low" in 2009.

If you look at the graph, I'd say that the overall trend in the past 35 years is one of slow decrease, regardless of temporary peaks and troughs.

And of course, has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum, unlike private citizens, part of LEOs' jobs is to approach suspects, e.g. while serving warrants, investigating a disturbance or making an arrest. Cops have to actively put themselves in potentially life-threatening situations, made all the riskier by the fact that they readily identifiable as cops, and known by suspects to be armed. That makes their situations dramatically different from those of armed private citizens.

[Bold Lib]

55. Reminds me of the old adage: Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

It just came to me when reading your post. Thanks!

[onehandle]

76. Yikes. nt