A glance at US mass shootings in recent years

[Rider Haggard]

A gunman killed 10 people, including five family members, and himself during a shooting rampage Tuesday in Alabama. Here is a glance at some of the worst U.S. mass shootings in recent years:

___

_ March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people — including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy — across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.

_ Feb. 14, 2008: Former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, fatally shooting five students and wounding 18 others before committing suicide.

_ Dec. 5, 2007: Robert A. Hawkins, 19, opened fire with a rifle at a Von Maur store in an Omaha, Neb., mall, killing eight people before taking his own life. Five more people were wounded, two critically.

_ April 16, 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, fatally shot 32 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, then killed himself in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

_ Oct. 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, shot to death five girls at West Nickel Mines Amish School in Pennsylvania, then killed himself.

_ March 21, 2005: Student Jeffrey Weise, 16, killed nine people, including his grandfather and his grandfather's companion at home. Also included were five fellow students, a teacher and a security guard at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minn. He then killed himself. Seven students were wounded.

_ March 12, 2005: Terry Ratzmann, 44, gunned down members of his congregation as they worshipped at the Brookfield Sheraton in Brookfield, Wisconsin, slaying seven and wounding four before killing himself.

_ March 5, 2001: Charles "Andy" Williams, 15, killed two fellow students and wounded 13 others at Santana High School in Santee, Calif.

_ July 29, 1999: Former day trader Mark Barton, 44, killed nine people in shootings at two Atlanta brokerage offices, then killed himself.

_ April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves in the school's library.

_ May 21, 1998: Two teenagers were killed and more than 20 people hurt when Kip Kinkel, 17, opened fire at a high school in Springfield, Ore., after killing his parents.

_ March 24, 1998: Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, killed four girls and a teacher at a Jonesboro, Ark., middle school. Ten others were wounded in the shooting.

_ July 12, 1976: Edward Charles Allaway, a custodian in the library of California State University, Fullerton, fatally shot seven fellow employees and wounded two others.

_ May 4, 1970: Four Kent State University students were killed by Ohio National Guard troops during a campus protest of the invasion of Cambodia. Nine people were wounded.

_ Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.


From AP. Posted without comment but a plea for common sense.

[villager]

1. and they're coming more often now...

n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. You noticed that too?

They used to be fairly rare

[Tim01]

39. They have become almost fashionable.

The angry victim getting even.
And we are having economic problems. The collective stress is making everybody more miserable.

[Deja Q]

102. For some, wearing safety pins is fashionable too.

:eyes:

I don't buy into the "getting even" idea, but it sure as hell would be nice if our society worked on the core problems and reduce -- or eliminate -- the making of victims in the first place. Punish the bullies and the bastards. How difficult is that?

[Fumesucker]

106. Given that the bullies and bastards are mostly the ones in charge..

I would say damn nigh impossible.

[Hanse]

3. A plea for common sense?

Common sense says that we shouldn't piss on the Constitution because of a few scary, high profile but incredibly rare incidents that are no real legitimate threat to the public at large.

That would be kind of like ignoring the Geneva conventions because it will make some people feel more protected from terrorism.

[Believing Is Art]

6. We don't have to piss on the Constitution to enforce common sense rules

The asshole had mandatory treatment for mental problems, had been reported several times for stalking, and had been declared an imminent danger to himself and others. He got around that hurdle to purchasing weapons by simply lying. Had that not panned out, he could have just gone to a gun show.

Someone like this has forfeited their right to bear arms, and the law should reflect that and it should be enforced in all cases.

[brentspeak]

7. *cough*...a few???!!!

A "few"..."incredibly rare" incidents? That article listed just a "few" of the many mass shootings since 2002:

There's also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting">Appalachian School of Law massacre

...the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting">Trolley Square massacre

...the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting">Westroads Mall massacre

...the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Massacre">Capital Hill massacre

...the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_Plastics_shooting">Atlantis Plastics massacre

...the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_City_Council_shooting">Kirkwood City Council massacre

And those are just a "few" off the top of my head.

[Hanse]

8. All incredibly rare.

It's like being worried about being struck by a meteor.

[brentspeak]

9. .

:wow:

[Rider Haggard]

10. Then pray tell, why are so many worried about their right to carry for self defense?

Like you said, "it's like being worried about being struck by a meteor."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. I don't believe there is a right to carry.

I believe that would be a privilege granted by the state. I personally don't take part in that privilege although my state does allow it.

David

[Hanse]

16. Oh, they're stupid cowards too.

But then there are the collectors and target shooters and hunters.

And their civil liberties are protected from irrational fears of people who really aren't very good at math.

[Believing Is Art]

14. That's hyperbole

And it discounts the impact on those that survive, know the victims, or have a connection to the location.

We cannot ignore glaring warning signs and allow dangerous people access to firearms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. You know my problem with people like you

fine you have a right to carry a weapon, in a well regulated militia, that second part is always ignored... yes that means a well regulated militia, in today's terms, the armed forces.

That said, I have no problem with HUNTING rifles, or pistols, and even automatics (but not extended clips thank you)

I draw the line at fully automatic weapons meant for hunting other humans, read assault rifles, machine guns

That is where I draw the line... and until you can show me a well armed bear that is shooting back with assault rifles, sorry... no assault guns for hunting.

I also draw the line at people who should not have the privilege of having a weapon at home, for many reasons... getting access to them, read shows, where you too can find all kinds of crap no problem.

As to the rarity of these things... read the dates... that AP story does not include all of them, by far... but they have gone up in frequency, by quite a bit


And don't get me started on the war that is coming here, and it will only get hotter. Yep, that one caused by our export of 90% of the armory from our shows and four states... that will come here... and yep, cops will be outgunned... not a happy thought.

The founding fathers... yes those old men who wrote that document, would agree on these limits, as they'd realize this is no longer a frontier Then again, they added that silly line about a well regulated militia, for a reason.

Oh and before you say it... owning weapons was extremely rare in the 18th and 19th centuries, and gun control laws were very common in the West, no, cowboys did not go around packing in places like Dodge City, that is a hollywood myth. Pick up a book and chiefly read it.

[Hanse]

18. That we're functionally literate?

It's not that the "well-regulated militia" is ignored. It's that it's irrelevant.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's an independent clause. You don't have to be a member of the militia. The right to keep and bear arms uninfringed is necessary for a free state.

That's the way the Supreme Court has always intepreted it. You can study Constitutional law. Or just read the thing. It's not that hard to figure out.

"That said, I have no problem with HUNTING rifles, or pistols, and even automatics (but not extended clips thank you)

I draw the line at fully automatic weapons meant for hunting other humans, read assault rifles, machine guns"

So, you're fine with automatics but not automatics? Huh?

"And don't get me started on the war that is coming here, and it will only get hotter. Yep, that one caused by our export of 90% of the armory from our shows and four states... that will come here... and yep, cops will be outgunned... not a happy thought."

Are you talking about the drug problems in Mexico? Well if you're worried about that, for fuck's sake you should favor drug legalization. Not more stupid laws that don't work.

"Oh and before you say it... owning weapons was extremely rare in the 18th and 19th centuries, and gun control laws were very common in the West, no, cowboys did not go around packing in places like Dodge City, that is a hollywood myth. Pick up a book and chiefly read it."

Lynching black people was very common in the Old West. And shooting Native Americans. That's the kind of thing that happens when laws like teh Constitution are enforced. Why you thought I was going to say anythign about the 18th and 19th century I haven't a clue.

Pick up the Constitution and chiefly read it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. I have read it and you are wrong

and that's the end of it

Sooner or later the US will join the rest of the world when it comes to silly things like an M-16, oh sorry an AR -15 in the hands of civilians

By the way you are so hot for that? JOIN THE ARMY... they will let you play with all kinds of shit... even some real big and fun shit

As to the war on drugs... sorry buddy it is going NORTH... and I FAVOR legalization

But we will join the civilized world sooner or later, because the people will demand it... in spite of a few, and becoming less every year, who want to play with weapons meant to hunt people... not deer

And let me repeat this, show me a well armed bear, then I have no problem with you using your AK to go hunt it

And yes, that is my problem with people like you...

[Hanse]

22. The Supreme Court disagrees.

You're welcome to read the ruling to find out why I'm right and they're wrong.

"Sooner or later the US will join the rest of the world when it comes to silly things like an M-16, oh sorry an AR -15 in the hands of civilians"

I thought upthread you were OK with semi-automatic rifles. Did you change your mind, or do you just have no idea what you're talking about?

"By the way you are so hot for that? JOIN THE ARMY... they will let you play with all kinds of shit... even some real big and fun shit"

I don't care about guns. Never had any, never will.

If you're so hot for curtailing rights to satisfy some irrational fears, go back in time to the Bush administration.

"But we will join the civilized world sooner or later, because the people will demand it... in spite of a few, and becoming less every year, who want to play with weapons meant to hunt people... not deer"

See, in my opinion, people who are civilized people don't exchange liberty for security. And those who do deserve neither.

"And let me repeat this, show me a well armed bear, then I have no problem with you using your AK to go hunt it"

Hunting has nothing to do with it. Gun collections are a perfectly legitimate reason to own a Kalishnikov.

"And yes, that is my problem with people like you... "

I think you've got all sorts of problems. And I'm not one of them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Yeah the supreme court disagrees... whatever

and what are my problems Professor Freud?

And I have no problem with HUNTING Rifles, an AR 15 is not in that category

As semi automatic as it may be

By the way... can you freely get a Tommy Gun or a BAR? Same thing, different decade, read your history

[Irreverend IX]

38. An AR-15 is just fine for hunting small creatures...

Its light weight, high accuracy, superior ergonomics and weather resistance make it better for hunting prairie dogs and similar creatures that most traditional-style rifles. It shouldn't be used to hunt larger game like deer because it's not powerful enough. But you can use an AR-10 for those purposes.

And it is not the "same thing, different decade" as a Thompson or BAR. The original Thompson and BAR are fully automatic, and civilian-legal AR-15s are semiautomatic. You do understand the difference, right? Full-auto civilian weapons are extremely rare, expensive and tightly regulated. And there are plenty of semiautomatic Thompsons and BARs in civilian hands.

And why do these rifles concern you when they're used in a vanishingly small fraction of gun crimes? Rifles of all kinds, from semiautos to bolt-actions, are used in less than 3% of yearly US homicides. More people are killed with fists and feet each year. By far the most popular crime guns are small, cheap handguns that can easily be tossed in the river and replaced after use.

[DrCory]

85. Are You Claiming...

that you are more qualified to interpret the Constitution than the USSC?

"Yeah the supreme court disagrees... whatever"

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. There are decisions one court has made that have been overturned

decades later, in one particular case, famously separate but equal, too close to seventy years.


Pick up a history book and read it, chiefly

Sooner or later decisions get overturned.

Or are you telling me that they never do that?

If you are... you truly need to pick up a history book

And that is where packing courts comes in

[DrCory]

99. What Makes You Think...

The Heller decision will be overturned?

[Fumesucker]

107. Bush v. Gore..

The USSC fucks up fairly often, sometime dramatically.

[billyoc]

21. "fully automatic weapons meant for hunting other humans, read assault rifles, machine guns"

All already illegal under currently existing laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. No they are not and you know better

Should I mention our lovely assault weapons ban?

I know some folks believe this is a loosing proposition

These shootings are increasing in frequency... only a matter of time

You do know the BAR and the Tommy Gun were legal for civie use at one point?

You know why they are not right?

Same scenario

Amazing how history repeats itself

[FudaFuda]

41. the '94 AWB did not affect full-auto weapons ... it only banned certain semi-auto's

I'm surprised this still has to be said. The 1994 AWB only banned certain semi-auto weapons that had certain cosmetic features that were apparently unsavory to those who thought they needed to be banned. The AWB didn't ban fully automatic weapons, nor were fully automatic weapons made 'free and legal' again when the ban sunset in 2004.

fully automatic weapons are technically legal in the US, but highly regulated and VERY expensive. Like $5000 for the cheapest ones, and most prices over $10,000. There is a very limited and finite supply, because the only fully auto weapons that can be registered have to have been 'in the registry' by 1986. And this is only after passing through a very stringent and thorough ATF background check. It's basically a collector's thing. You'll have to dig pretty hard to find any instance of a legally owned fully automatic weapon being used in a crime in the US since the National Firearms Act of 1934. In fact I don't think any such event has ever occurred.

[billyoc]

44. They've been illegal since the '30s.

[tangent90]

63. You're pretty vocal about a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

...

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Yeah you are right, a subject I actually know quite a bit about

not only legally, but from the history of it, but taken care off some of the people who were ahem, shot by weapons designed to hunt people

Chew on that...

By the way, like it or not, the history of gun control is germane to the discussion

Fact is the old west had them...

Never mind the MYTH of the old west, ignores that.

Have a good life...

Protecting what you are quickly becoming the minority

I suspect history will repeat itself once again...

[tangent90]

88. You don't even know the difference between an "automatic" and an "assault"

or apparently what EITHER term means. You do a lot of breast-beating but never quite come right out and say what you really want or how you think the "problem" you appear to be very -concerned- over should be addressed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Yes I do.. next

by the way you do know the AR 15 is a semi auto, while its military issue cousin can do one shot, three shots and full auto? (And it's stock is produced by Matttel, which led to all kinds of jokes in the bush, when first issued)

The full auto is considered an assault weapon

They use the same ammo

They have the same ballistic characteristics...

Anything else you'd want to ask? The 5.56 Nato Round was designed for MILITARY uses, whether that is put in the magazine of an AR-15 or an M-16

It is a smaller round than we USED to use, since we discovered this little thing... first the German assault rifle, with shorter ranges, but hell of a firepower... you know the daddy of the Kalashnikov... oh wait, most folks don't know that.

We also discovered that we didn't need that range... as most firefights occur close up... not at a 1000 yards

Here is another thing I know from statistics and personal experience... the hit ratio \ firefights ain't that high.

Good thing... mostly.

You see, folks like you assume much...

Now I usually stay out of these so-called debates... but I will repeat this... history ain't on your side. Once people you know those stupid civilians that don't know the difference between a gas operated or an air cooled, whatever, get tired of this crap... they demand limits come in. Usually, even the worst of politicos, realize where their bread is buttered...and the more of this crap we have happening, aka shootings, the more people continue to get tired of it...

That is the political reality

Have a good day

:-)

[tangent90]

91. Yeah, you're a real expert. How about staying the fuck out of my Constitutional rights?

You're on the wrong side of this argument even though there are a few other fascist bastards who want to take away my rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Slowly once again

no problem with you having a side arm

No problem with you having a HUNTING rifle

The more the merrier

I take issue with rounds and weapons designed to kill humans in the hands of civies

By the way, due to the SPEED of that round coming out of that AR-15, it SUCKS for hunting... mostly will go through the deer.

There are FAR BETTER weapons to use for hunting

Knock yourself silly with that

As to being a fascist pig for wanting to keep MilGrade weapons out of the hands of civies... I am sure the USSC will sooner or later will enforce that Well Regulated Militia side, which they have been studious not to touch, for the most part, especially over the last eighty years, thank the NRA for that. But you will see those assault weapons regulated for the same reason the BAR left the civilian market in the 1930s...

But GUN CONTROL has a long story in this country... in the HISTORY of it, not the LEGENDS

Try picking up a book... and chiefly readying it...

I know scream all you want, about this fascist take over, but rational gun control demanded by them ignorant civilians will happen... for the same reason it happened in the 1930s, and the 19th century.

Chew on that

[tangent90]

93. "chiefly readying it"??????? What exactly are you smoking?

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Factoid most gun enthusiasts confuse gun control with gun

confiscation

Gun control is part of US history

read that again

GUN CONTROL IS PART OF US HISTORY

Find a good history book and read it.

Have a good life. I think we are done

Oh and I will wear your badge with honor

Thank you... usually when enthusiasts bring out the F word, one knows quickly running out of space and debate.

[DrCory]

100. Any "Round"

Can kill a human.

"I take issue with rounds and weapons designed to kill humans in the hands of civies"


And this statement proves just how ignorant of the subject you are:

"By the way, due to the SPEED of that round coming out of that AR-15, it SUCKS for hunting... mostly will go through the deer."

Velocity, or "speed" as you call it, is only one of many factors determining ballistic performance.

[Edweird]

114. Actually, .22 caliber rounds (5.56 included) are prohibited from use on deer in many states.

It's because they are not powerful enough to kill humanely.

"mostly will go through the deer." Yet again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.

[DrCory]

101. Quite Often Said And Contested...

And Armalite says BS. According to Snopes, it's false:

"And it's stock is produced by Matttel, which led to all kinds of jokes in the bush, when first issued)"

http://www.snopes.com/military/m16.asp

"The 5.56 Nato Round was designed for MILITARY uses..."

And is and excellent small game, pest, varmint cartridge because of it's ballistic performance. By the way, the 30-06 and 7.62x51 cartridges designed for military use as well. Why aren't you going on about those?

You haven't told me anything I don't already know. The only thing I have learned from your post is that you do not draw a distinction between semi-auto and full-auto. Otherwise, how can both be the AR15 and M16 be considered the same in your mind?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Automatic weapons are very highly regulated and were not covered under the AWB.

That's because "assault weapons" are semi-automatic rifles not full auto or select fire.

David

[benEzra]

32. The most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes

are only useful for "hunting other humans"?

Think about that a minute. More Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, but only 3% of U.S. murders involve rifles, and yet you still claim that the most popular rifles are primarily useful for murder?

[villager]

35. I absolutely agree with these distinctions, Nadin...

Sadly, effective NRA programming prohibits many -- even on this board -- from doing so...

[Edweird]

51. "NRA programming"? Nope. It's critical thinking, logic, and experience. Reading comprehension helps,

too. Plus I appreciate the Bill Of Rights as it is, not as others would try to make it.

[villager]

52. Like I said: NRA Programming....

n/t

[Edweird]

54. Like I said: reading comprehension.

US v Miller

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

DC v Heller
Decision

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<31> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<32>

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).



"these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

[villager]

62. Why not speak --specifically -- to Nadin's points, as I was

The predictable ad naseum citation of specific court cases and opinions (to the careful exclusion of others) is precisely the NRA school of exhaust and distract -- but never address -- that I was talking about.

It's entirely predictable and obvious.

This subthread was me agreeing with Nadin. Address her points.

[Edweird]

69. Sure, I'll break it down slowly for you.

You know my problem with people like you

-> "people like you" :eyes:

fine you have a right to carry a weapon, in a well regulated militia, that second part is always ignored... yes that means a well regulated militia, in today's terms, the armed forces.

-> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

"That said, I have no problem with HUNTING rifles, or pistols, and even automatics (but not extended clips thank you)"

->the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny,

Don't see hunting in there.

"I draw the line at fully automatic weapons meant for hunting other humans, read assault rifles, machine guns"

-> Fully automatic weapons are HEAVILY regulated and insanely expensive. The NFA is enforced in a Draconian manner.

"That is where I draw the line... and until you can show me a well armed bear that is shooting back with assault rifles, sorry... no assault guns for hunting."

->the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny,

Don't see hunting in there.


"I also draw the line at people who should not have the privilege of having a weapon at home, for many reasons... getting access to them, read shows, where you too can find all kinds of crap no problem."

-> Gun ownership is a RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE. I do agree that certain individuals should be barred from possessing guns.

"As to the rarity of these things... read the dates... that AP story does not include all of them, by far... but they have gone up in frequency, by quite a bit"

-> Haven't studied it, but times are really tough and people are having problems. It isn't unexpected that some act out.

"And don't get me started on the war that is coming here, and it will only get hotter. Yep, that one caused by our export of 90% of the armory from our shows and four states... that will come here... and yep, cops will be outgunned... not a happy thought."

-> Our gun shows started a war. :eyes: Well, hey, maybe the 'coming drug war' and the 'coming civil war' will cancel each other out....

"The founding fathers... yes those old men who wrote that document, would agree on these limits, as they'd realize this is no longer a frontier Then again, they added that silly line about a well regulated militia, for a reason."

-> the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;

"Oh and before you say it... owning weapons was extremely rare in the 18th and 19th centuries, and gun control laws were very common in the West, no, cowboys did not go around packing in places like Dodge City, that is a hollywood myth. Pick up a book and chiefly read it."

-> I can't speak to the veracity of that statement offhand, but I find it irrelevant either way.

[villager]

72. Irrelevant that America has a precedent of gun control laws?

Irrelevant because it's inconvenient with the current pro-gun talking points?

That said, while obviously I disagree with you -- and heck, you coulda even gone "faster!" -- I am impressed/surprised at your direct addressing of the sub-subject at hand...

Think of all the pixels we coulda saved if you'd done that directly!

[Edweird]

74. I was referring to her historical gun ownership claim

[villager]

78. You see? We stick to topic, and actual civility threatens to break out between us!

I, of course, was referring to this line:

"gun control laws were very common in the West,"

...which I think is very germane to the discussion...

[Edweird]

81. The lack of civility about this and certain other issues really bothers me.

Some facts about Edweird you may not know:

I am a Liberal Democrat. (Liberalism and gun ownership are NOT mutually exclusive.) I am certain we agree far far more than we disagree.

I am not a 'bad' person.

I am not a 'troll'.

I am not a 'gun peddler' or 'pusher'. (Not everybody is fit to own firearms.)

I am not a shill for the NRA. (I've never been a member and never will be. They don't represent me.)

If you treat me with respect, I will do likewise and we can have a perfectly civil discourse. Contempt, insults and innuendo (you people, gun nut, troll, idiot, etc) bring out the worst in me. I will also admit that I go on the offensive a little quick. We are on the same team, but we happen to disagree about the play necessary to get to the end zone(a safe and secure society).

So, if you are willing, we can put our past unpleasantness behind us, start over and at least be civil.

With that I have to go. I will be back Sunday night. I will address some of the other issues then.

[Edweird]

48. "in today's terms, the armed forces." Since when? Just because you WISH it

doesn't make it the truth.

US v Miller

The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

DC v Heller
Decision

On June 26, 2008, by a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal appeals court ruling, striking down the D.C. gun law. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated, "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."<31> This ruling upholds the first federal appeals court ruling ever to void a law on Second Amendment grounds.<32>

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

[slackmaster]

68. It sounds like you think the line was drawn correctly in 1934, with the National Firearms Act

That is how I feel about it.

[hfojvt]

26. Westroads Mall was included

the list also does not include the wannabes. That guy in Illinois intended to shoot more people, but his gun jammed and then he was overpowered before he could get others with his knife. A guy in the Kansas City area was on his way to shoot up a mall, got pulled over by a cop, who he exchanged gunfire with, went to the mall and was shot by the police before he did too much damage. A student at the Weston School district in Sauk County, Wisconsin brought a rifle to school, was disarmed by the janitor, but pulled a pistol and killed the Principal before being stopped. A couple of high school idiots in Reedsburgh, Wisconsin were bragging about a big crime spree or killing spree they were gonna go on, but apparently lost their nerve after stealing a car and shooting a woman in the back of the head (and she survived relatively unscathed, she spoke at their trial).

Apparently not nearly as rare as they used to be. Were there really no events between 1996 and 1976?

[hfojvt]

30. to answer my own question about the gap

Yes, there were events between 1998 and 1976.

San Ysidro McDonalds in 1984. 257 rounds fired, 21 people killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

Luby's Restaurant, Kileen, Texas - October 16, 1991, 23 killed, 20 wounded

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=1159

[hfojvt]

31. then there was going postal

20 Aug 1986 Edmond, Ok 14 killed, 6 wounded
10 Oct 1991 Ridgewood, NJ 4 killed
14 Nov 1991 Royal Oak, Michigan 5 killed
6 may 1993 two events Dearborn, Michigan (2 dead) Dana Point, Ca (3 dead)

between 1986 and 1997, 40 killed in 20 incidents of workplace rage at Post Offices

[brentspeak]

83. Thanks for listing those other ones

Plus, among more recent postal shootings, there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_San_Marco">Jennifer San Marco.

[anonymous171]

49. Exactly. nt

[lapfog_1]

4. Thom Hartmann made an interesting observation

on his radio program today. Many of the school shootings involve kids (the shooters) who are on cocktails of anti-depressants and ADHD
drugs. Like a *lot* of them. He didn't give the exact number, and perhaps you can't draw a conclusion from this because of the
HUGE number of all kids on these drugs... but it would be interesting to find out more.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. They are on the drugs because they're nuts. Did they do it because they are nuts or due to the drug?

:shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. What a shame.

I hope the families are able to find some peace and the survivors have recovered as much as possible.

David

[greenkal]

11. Why do we still let people have those things?

That is the biggest crime our government has ever committed. Every single day Americans are dying and the police still won't go door to door to secure those things.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. The Constitution I believe.

[Selatius]

19. It would likely mean repealing the 2nd Amendment, a difficult proposition at best.

You'd likely provoke the dissolution of the US like the USSR if you tried to repeal that thing.

[LiberalPersona]

24. Difficult, more like impossible

If any president tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I have no doubt there would be a heavily armed mob going down the White House's lawn.

[Selatius]

28. That's why I mentioned the US disintegrating like the USSR.

I think if any president or a bunch of politicians tried to do it, it would probably result in an end more similar to violence of Yugoslavia instead of the relatively peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union. I'm not willing to see which way the cookie would crumble.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

34. Because we live in a country with a constitution

And we shouldn't step on what's left of it.

[chrisa]

37. lol

I think going to door and killing everyone would make the world safer. You know, less people to commit murders.

[Dukkha]

43. you're welcome to try

Go to the door of the first gun owner you know and tell them you're there to confiscate their firearms. Just be sure to wear kevlar because they most likely won't comply peacefully.

I recall something like this happened before in some European country, right before they were rounded up and marched into rail cars.

[greenkal]

45. Thanks for confirming they're violent thugs!

with this statement:

> most likely won't comply peacefully.

Wow, just wow. And you wonder why normal people are so afraid of idiots that own those things.

[tangent90]

65. People who have no problem with police barging into everyone's house

are sick fucks.

[anonymous171]

50. I know. The Police are always trustworthy, unless they are brutalizing young people or minorities.

[slackmaster]

73. We have a thing called the Fourth Amendment that prohibits police from going door to door

Searching peoples' homes without a warrant, and seizing property without due process.

[Tejas]

108. Because they're SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE (Who is this "we" crap?)

200,000,000+ (that's 200 million) privately owned firearms in this country, sounds like YOU want to really peeve a lot of law-abiding citizens off.

Tell me,
are YOU going to pay for your door-to-door plan?
are YOU going to sanction taking LEO's from more sensible duties to execute your plan?

[Incitatus]

15. I'm sure some would think confiscating every gun in the country would be common sense.

The drug war does such a great job of keeping drugs away from users. I'm sure the government can keep guns out of the hands of killers.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

23. There appears to have been a lull of 22 years from 1976 to 1998.

Anyone have any ideas as to why that might be?

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Here's a partial list of workplace shootings dating back to 1986

http://www.emergency-management.net/workplace_shoot.htm

And that's not including such infamous incidents as the San Ysidro, CA mass shooting that occurred in July 1984

[benEzra]

33. What "common sense" would you advocate?

Outlawing deer rifles like Charles Whitman and the Jonesboro shooters used? Outlawing hunting shotguns like the NIU shooter, the Columbine killers, and Trolley Square shooter used? Outlawing ordinary pistols like the VT and Luby's shooters used? Outlawing small- and intermediate-caliber carbines like the Alabama and Von Maur shooters used? Outlawing revolvers like Gang Lu and the Trolley Square shooter used?

If not, what are you advocating?

[Believing Is Art]

86. I really don't care what type of gun anyone owns

If someone gets their rocks off by hitting targets with a semi-auto at a shooting range, I really don't care. What I do care about is the process people go through to buy guns and the checks that are performed on them.

[chrisa]

36. OMG! Ban guns!

Why do people want the government to completely control their lives?

I assume everybody who wants to ban guns is also in favor of expanding the Patriot Act? You know, those scary terrorists MIGHT attack us. That's reason enough to take parts out of the Constitution that might make us safer.

[LeftinOH]

40. I seriously want to know the political leanings of most of these people...

Maybe not the teenagers- but definately of the adults. Mental/emotional instability notwithstanding, one has to believe that people with a rigid/narrow/uncompromising world view are somehwat more likely to go on a shooting spree. On the other hand, people with open minds and a *generally* liberal outlook would seem to be somewhat *more* likely to actually confront problems -and their own feelings- and deal with them in a way that is not harmful to others. Generally.

[Believing Is Art]

I think politics has little to do with it

In the case of the asshole at Virginia Tech, he was not a fan of Bush and Cheney. That was only one small portion of his rant, and he didn't really say why he was against them. He probably would have hated any Democrats if they had been in the White House. Most of his ranting was against the general student populace.

These shooting seem more motivated by mental illness than politics. They feel there has been some great wrong against them, either recently or life-long. They want to make a statement and become a hero and martyr. In reality, they are more evil and self-righteous than anyone they think has done wrong against them.

[tangent90]

42. Interestingly, nearly all of those were in 'gun-free-zones'

...

[Zywiec]

46. 1966 is recent now?

Sweet!

I'm younger than I thought!

:hi:

[Arugula Latte]

47. USA Number One!

The gun nuts can take pride in this list.

[Noodleboy13]

55. The kid in Germany yesterday is giving us a run for the title.

15 dead. 3.5 hour, 700 officer police chase.

I often wish that these people would just do the suicide part first, then the mass murder, rather than they way they do it know.



peace
Noodleboy

[FudaFuda]

57. These things happen all over the world, and always have

Just nabbed this on wikipedia's page on 'spree killers'

----------------------------------------------------
Notably large spree killings in history include:

Tsuyama massacre (Japan, 1938): Mutsuo Toi, using an old Japanese rifle and swords, killed 30<4> and then himself in an hour and a half.

University of Texas massacre (United States, 1966): Charles Whitman, a student at the University of Texas at Austin killed 14 people and wounded 31 others as part of a shooting rampage from the observation deck of the University's 32-story administrative building. He did this shortly after murdering his wife and mother. He was eventually shot and killed by Austin police.

Uireyeong massacre (South Korea, 1982): Woo Bum-kon killed 57 and then himself in eight hours, using grenades and an M1 Carbine. 35 people were also wounded.

Hungerford massacre (United Kingdom, 1987): Michael Robert Ryan, using two semi-automatic rifles and a handgun, killed 16 people and wounded 15 others in a space of 7 hours before shooting himself.

Aramoana Massacre (New Zealand, 1990): David Gray, using a Norinco Type 56-1S .223 semi-automatic rifle killed 13 people on 13 November. He was shot and killed by police the following day after a 22 hour stand off.

Dunblane massacre (United Kingdom, 1996): Thomas Hamilton, using two 9 mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolvers, fired 109 times killed 17 people and injured 15 people on 13 March, before shooting himself.

Port Arthur massacre (Australia, 1996): Martin Bryant, using an AR-15 and an L1A1 SLR, killed 35 and injured 19 in five hours before being arrested by the Special Operations Group of the Tasmanian Police.

Red Lake High School massacre (United States, 2005): Jeff Weise. Shot and killed his grandfather and his grandfather's girlfriend, both police officers. He then proceeded to a local high school and shot and killed a security guard. Once inside the school Weise shot and killed five students and a teacher before committing suicide. Weise killed 9 and injured 15.

Virginia Tech massacre (United States, 2007): Seung-Hui Cho, using two pistols, killed 32 in two separate events and then himself in the course of about three hours.

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (Ukraine, 2007): an unusual group murder spree. Viktor Sayenko, Alexander Hanzha and Igor Suprunyuck, all 19, went on several murder sprees, claiming 21 victims in one month and videotaping most murders. Two victims were murdered within minutes of each other on June 25; two more on July 1st, three on July 7th, and two each on the 14th, 15th and 16th July, 2007.

Akihabara massacre (Japan, 2008): Tomohiro Kato hit five pedestrians with a truck, then stabbed twelve people. Kato killed seven and injured 10.

2009 Alabama spree killing (United States, 2009): Michael McLendon using SKS rifle, Bushmaster AR-15, and .38-caliber handgun killed 10 on 10 March and before shooting himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Notice that Japan's pesky gun control didn't stop Tomohiro Kato last year in Akihabara. He got creative. Also missing from the list is the 2001 school massacre in Osaka, Japan where the school's janitor killed 8 and injured 15 (mostly kids), again with a knife.

[Arugula Latte]

64. In most developed countries these types of sprees are shockingly rare.

In the United States, it's ho-hum, commonplace. We expect, and receive, several of these a year. They call them "American-style killing sprees" in Europe.

[FudaFuda]

67. Since a European-style killing spree usually kills millions, I'll take that label. n/t

.

[slackmaster]

76. They sure seem to be happening a lot for something that is shockingly rare

March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 at a school in Winnenden, Germany.

Sept. 23, 2008: Matti Saari, 22, killed nine fellow students and a teacher before shooting himself at a vocational school in Kauhajoki, Finland.

Nov. 7, 2007: Pekka-Eric Auvinen, 18, shoots and kills eight people and himself at a high school in Tuusula, Finland.

Nov. 20, 2006: Sebastian Bosse, 18, goes on a rampage at his former high school in Emsdetten, Germany, near the Dutch border, shooting and injuring four students and the school janitor. Police commandos later found Bosse dead.

April 26, 2002: Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, previously expelled from a school in Erfurt, Germany, kills 13 teachers, two former classmates and a policeman, before committing suicide.

March 13, 1996: Thomas Hamilton, 43, killed 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, and then killed himself.

[Arugula Latte]

103. With the exception of Germany, most countries you cite have one of these or so in a long time period

In the USA -- Eh, another day, another mass shooting.

How many more mass slayings do you recall happening in Scotland, for example, since 1996, which was 13 years ago?

Now, how many have happened in this country?

Big difference.

[slackmaster]

105. The USA also has a lot more people than any of those countries

We have more of everything, including violent criminals.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. US population is over 300 million

scotland at last count 2001-5,062,000. Arizona, at last count, 6,338,755. We think of Arizona as a mostly empty desert, yet it has a million more folks than Scotland...Los Angeles County has over 10 million, California 30 million...LA County is more populated than two Scotlands...
Such numbers do mean things. We will have more of everything, genius and crime and everything.

[Number23]

94. The Port Authur killings led to MASSIVE gun control laws in Australia

Now, it's a rare thing to hear about gun violence here.

[ColbertWatcher]

56. I've only been keeping track on the NRA page ...

... on the Truthiness Encyclopedia (http://www.wikiality.com/NRA#NRA_Tour ) starting in 2008.

Interesting list.

[Blackhatjack]

58. Simple Qs: How many guns are enough for one person to own? Are some guns too deadly to own?

ARe there ANY LIMITS on gun ownership that would not offend your 2nd Amendment loyalties?

[tangent90]

61. How many speeches are enough for one person to give? Is some speech too deadly

to speak? What are the limits on the First Amendment that won't offend your tender sensibilities? Do they extend beyond
inciting violence, mayhem or treason?

[Blackhatjack]

79. How Ridiculous? Free Speech Doesn't Kill People... Guns Do ...

OF course you did not answer my questions....

What if your unfriendly neighbor belonged to a racist extremist group? Would you be fine with him keeping 500 guns and 10,000 rounds in his home?

There are limits to constitutional rights, as the courts have constantly pointed out.

[FudaFuda]

80. Slackmaster answered your question, and I agree with slackmaster.

National Firearms Act of 1934. That's all the infringement we needed. Of course we got the Gun Control Act of 1968 tacked on later, and that one wasn't necessary but gun owners have tacitly agreed to abide by it. The "Lautenburg amendment" to the '68 act is a bunch of crap, but its Constitutionality hasn't been tested by SCOTUS so we're stuck with it unless/until that day comes. The Court SHOULD HAVE broached the Constitutionality of the Lautenburg amendment sua sponte in the recent Hayes decision, but didn't because the parties didn't argue it, and I think they feel like they've opined on the 2nd amendment enough for a while.

We've got plenty of gun control in this country already. I don't care how many guns and ammo my neighbor owns, as long as its all owned legally under current law. He can only carry around so much at once anyway. But if he owned 500 guns and only 10,000 rounds of ammo, I might advise him that he needs more ammo.

Finally, if my neighbor belonged to a racist extremist group, I'd have bigger concerns about where I was living than how many guns the guy has.

[Blackhatjack]

97. "if he owned 500 guns and only 10,000 rounds of ammo, I might advise him that he needs more ammo."

Pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.

And your final allegation "if my neighbor belonged to a racist extremist group, I'd have bigger concerns about where I was living than how many guns the guy has."

How exactly will you prevent your neighbors from selling their homes to a buyer that is a member of a racist extremist group? You don't get to veto everyone else's decision to buy a home and live in your neighborhood.

[FudaFuda]

98. heck yeah. that's only 20 rds per firearm. that'd be pretty stupid.

I put 150rds through my 9mm the last time I went to the range, and between me and my son probably twice that many .22lr

A person can own 500 firearms if they can afford to do so, but owning them would be borderline pointless with only 20 rds of ammo available per gun. It takes at least 500 rds of any one kind of ammunition through any one gun to ensure reliable function.

I thought you knew about guns? Oh, that's right, you grew up in a town with a big gun shop.

[tangent90]

90. I keep forgetting about the epidemic of guns leaping from their holsters and

wreaking mayhem on unsuspecting bystanders. I responded to your idiotic question with another idiotic one in the forlorn hope you would allow your Constitutional brain cells to fire but sadly it appears they are all dead. Maybe one of those guns that fires all by itself shot the shit out of them.

You might not like it and I might not like it but it's not against the law to be a racist. There are plenty people running around who would be more than happy to see us lose OUR rights...I'd just as soon not emulate them. Tell you what, keep your mitts off my 2nd Am. rights and I won't bitch about your First Am. rights.

[Blackhatjack]

96. It's apparent from your attempt to conflate 2nd Amend rights with 1st Amend rights you're NRA taught

There is no reason to even mention the 1st Amend rights in a discussion of 2nd Amend rights regarding guns.... except to confuse and avoid a legitimate discussion of the issue at hand. Of course, the NRA is famous for making such assertions -- so I would surmise that you borrowed that particular line of obfuscation from them.

You might believe in the 'purity' of gun ownership rights and believe that there cannot be any laws which constrain the 2nd Amend rights granted in the Constitution --but you would be WRONG. There are hundreds of legitimate, sane and legal restrictions on the ownership of guns that impinge on your idea of 'absolute ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment.' We don't allow citizens who committed a felony to own a gun. Many states require owners of handguns to install 'gun locks' if those guns are stored in a home with children. There are numerous places where guns cannot be carried, even with a concealed weapon permit. etc.

So don't tell me to keep my mitts off your 2nd Amendment rights, plenty of mitts have been all over your 2nd Amend rights before you even knew I existed.

IF and when the laws regarding assault weapons change AND you are in violation of those laws, I will be happy to lead law enforcement to your front door and watch them arrest you and take away your illegal guns. And when that happens it won't have a thing to do with my 1st Amendment rights, thank you.

[slackmaster]

71. A strict limit on types of guns was set in 1934

I think the line was drawn correctly then.

[Tejas]

112. "too deadly"?

I'd love to hear you qualify that remark.



"too many"?

I know fellow enthusiasts with extensive collections, several individuals own over 300 firearms. Last time I checked, none of their firearms commited a crime, much less plotted amongst each other.

[butterfly77]

59. I kept wondering what in the hell some people ...

were thinking when bush and his buddies kept saying he was keeping america safe and they were fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them over here. As I watched all of the crime in this country with these so called real americans...

[NNN0LHI]

60. They left out a woman walked into a Kmart and shot a bunch of people in St. Johns, Indiana

I can't find much on it but I remember when it happened. I still shop there regularly. I can only find one small reference to it here:

http://www.route41.org/route41indiana_2.html

By 8:10, we are passing through St. Johns, Indiana, of K-Mart Shooting Disaster fame. The road is covered in snow ...

[fascisthunter]

66. well REGULATED Militia

regulating guns is common sense.

[slackmaster]

70. A militia is a group of people

Not of weapons.

[treestar]

75. The break between 2001 and 2005

kind of interesting.

Kent State shouldn't be on the list - different phenomenon.

[slackmaster]

77. I think the UTA tower shooting doesn't belong on the list either

It happened before the Gun Control Act of 1968, which created the current federal firearms licensing system, regulated interstate commerce in firearms, and stopped mail order sales to non-licensees.

OTOH the extreme rarity of such events BEFORE the GCA is kind of interesting.

[mainer]

104. This is a very old phenomenon. It's the basis for the word "Amok."

"Running amok" came from similar attacks in Indonesia, I believe. It describes the shocking and unpredictable attacks by young men who'd suddenly start running around attacking people with knives or machetes. It occurs in every culture, not just the U.S.

The only difference is that in the US, easy access to firearms makes running amok far more deadly.

[WillieW]

110. 15 students killed in Germany last week. Gunman shot himself.

Not just in this courty. The German Bundesliga is wearing black armbands during their games. It's a sign of the times. Horrible!

[TWiley]

111. Don't Assault Rifles make America Safer, and a more polite society?

[Tejas]

113. Scariest guns

in existence, so I would say yes.




"Behind every blade of grass."