Mass Shootings the last six months

[AquaMan]

Maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were. Or maybe this fixation on gun rights is messing with you. I think the latter.

Girl? So what?

Look, after I read your post I ventured into the weird world of Yahoo and pulled up lots of violent activities across the country. Saturday night gun and knife club stuff. This was just one more of them only an off duty guard, with a pistol, stepped up and shot the guy. You ignore the fact that he had been shooting into a patrol car and yet the well trained, well armed cops couldn't stop him. You think the press should have played this up to prove a point that all security guards need to carry weapons and hang around theaters? Is that a strong defense of your thesis? There is no comparing this episode to a well planned out assault with an assault weapon like the school shooting.

If there is an agenda it is to reduce gun violence. Differing views on how to do that have been presented. When most of the world holds a differing view than yours and acts to effect change, it doesn't make them bad people who have an evil, nefarious agenda who collude with the press.

[RecycleMichael]

This guy went to the restaurant where his "issue" was, shot a couple rounds, then consciously went elsewhere - a movie theater - firing a couple shots until he was shot by the lady.  Obviously there was at least a similar intent, even if there was inadequate infrastructure to do the kind of damage the Newtown person did or the Oregon theater guy did..  The difference is in degree only - he was stopped early in the process.  But the defendant did have to pay $100 to the court fund, and $100 victim's compensation.  Plus costs.

You have such an imagination. He obviosly went to the theater to hide or escape. The shots fired in the theater happened when the lady started firing at him. The reason there was any firing in the theater was the "good samaritan" took matters in her own hands and got involved. The people in the theater became endangered because they both started shooting at each other.

For you to imply that he went to the theater to start killing innocent people is outrageous and completely false.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Here's the CBS version.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

Bottom line: A responsible CCW (off-duty cop) stopped a mass shooting.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were. Or maybe this fixation on gun rights is messing with you. I think the latter.

Girl? So what?

Look, after I read your post I ventured into the weird world of Yahoo and pulled up lots of violent activities across the country. Saturday night gun and knife club stuff. This was just one more of them only an off duty guard, with a pistol, stepped up and shot the guy. You ignore the fact that he had been shooting into a patrol car and yet the well trained, well armed cops couldn't stop him. You think the press should have played this up to prove a point that all security guards need to carry weapons and hang around theaters? Is that a strong defense of your thesis? There is no comparing this episode to a well planned out assault with an assault weapon like the school shooting.

If there is an agenda it is to reduce gun violence. Differing views on how to do that have been presented. When most of the world holds a differing view than yours and acts to effect change, it doesn't make them bad people who have an evil, nefarious agenda who collude with the press.

Right back at ya...

Girl...just correcting your statement of a guy stopping the event.

You obviously miss the point completely - it is NOT that all these violent events should be "played up" - it is that NONE of them should be played up more than the others.  This has become a "Nancy Grace" moment with CNN and the others.  Remember how she fixates on the cute little blond girl of the year that is kidnapped/beaten/murdered/etc.  To the complete and total exclusion of all the other kids that have the same thing happen to them.  And instead of rational discussion of methods/techniques to address the real background issues - in this case, mental illness - firearms are demonized because of the acts of a few lunatics.  And yet, somehow, otherwise normally rational thinking people jump on the bandwagon of irrational knee jerk reaction for a "solution" that isn't.  As evidenced by the the approach Chicago takes by outlawing all handguns and many if not most long guns.  And whose murder rate is spiking to new records and always higher than "average".  Even when they know for a fact the their problem is gang related activity - they still go after the guns of law abiding people.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You have such an imagination. He obviosly went to the theater to hide or escape. The shots fired in the theater happened when the lady started firing at him. The reason there was any firing in the theater was the "good samaritan" took matters in her own hands and got involved. The people in the theater became endangered because they both started shooting at each other.

For you to imply that he went to the theater to start killing innocent people is outrageous and completely false.

From the San Antonio news report;

The employees inside the restaurant fled out a side door into the parking lot. Investigators said Garcia began chasing the employees and continued firing at them as they ran through the parking lot and into the Mayan Palace Theatre next door.

As Garcia was running through the parking lot, he shot the windshield of a San Antonio Police patrol car after an officer in the car shined a spotlight on him. The officer was not injured.

Garcia then ran inside the movie theater, where he continued his search for the restaurant employees. Movie-goers in the lobby, bathroom, and some theaters reported hearing multiple gunshots. The gunshots caused people inside the theater to panic.


No...he didn't go to the theater to kill people - he went chasing after innocent people who ran in there to kill them.  So, I guess you are parsing it up so that innocent people from outside the theater are somehow different from innocent people who were already in there??  Makes no sense.  Doesn't matter if they were from the restaurant or already in the theater - once he was in there and shooting at ANYBODY, his intent was to kill innocent people.

And no, to be absolutely clear, I am not implying he went to the theater to kill innocent people - I am stating outright as a matter of demonstrated fact that he went into the theater to kill innocent people - as a continuation of his attempt to kill innocent people starting at the restaurant.  By definition.  And absolutely true.

[AquaMan]

Points are being missed but your insistence on your point of view as reality places you as defendant. Did you read or comprehend any of this post?-

...we continue to look at symptoms and diagnose from conflicting indications rather than looking holistically at the sickness. That's why people point fingers at the NRA, the celebrities, the politicians, the guns themselves. Take a page from the "House" philosophy. One, all patients are liars.  Two, look in the environment of the patient for evidence of the cause of the symptoms. Then you can diagnose and treat the disease.

To wit:
-We are plagued with drug driven populations. Bears repeating. We have drug problems. Fosters mental illness.
-We have to endure unequal opportunity for success, education and justice. Money buys easy access to those critical elements. That leads to wildly disparate and concentrated wealth the rest of the first world countries don't have to cope with.
-Our population is easily swayed by stupid leaders who are bought and sold. The result is more prisons, more violence, less public education support, more gambling (both in casinos and in Wall Street) and emphasis on "simple" solutions.
-And most importantly, we refuse to recognize the reality of this environment I described. Its a mental illness when what you see, does not represent what is real. Its tragedy when the rest of your life is based on those false perceptions. That's why we can't reach agreement on fiscal problems, social change and science.

Insisting that a (as you said probably drunk) guy with a pistol ambling around town shooting things up is analagous, comparable or even similar to a well planned, well armed mass shooting is just not right. It demeans and distracts from your arguments for gun rights. Keeping hundred round clips and military weapons regulated is an effort to limit the damage done. A tactical effort. Your restaurant/theater shooter would have done much more damage with one of those guns. Am I shooting too high?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Points are being missed but your insistence on your point of view as reality places you as defendant. Did you read or comprehend any of this post?-

...we continue to look at symptoms and diagnose from conflicting indications rather than looking holistically at the sickness. That's why people point fingers at the NRA, the celebrities, the politicians, the guns themselves. Take a page from the "House" philosophy. One, all patients are liars.  Two, look in the environment of the patient for evidence of the cause of the symptoms. Then you can diagnose and treat the disease.

To wit:
-We are plagued with drug driven populations. Bears repeating. We have drug problems. Fosters mental illness.
-We have to endure unequal opportunity for success, education and justice. Money buys easy access to those critical elements. That leads to wildly disparate and concentrated wealth the rest of the first world countries don't have to cope with.
-Our population is easily swayed by stupid leaders who are bought and sold. The result is more prisons, more violence, less public education support, more gambling (both in casinos and in Wall Street) and emphasis on "simple" solutions.
-And most importantly, we refuse to recognize the reality of this environment I described. Its a mental illness when what you see, does not represent what is real. Its tragedy when the rest of your life is based on those false perceptions. That's why we can't reach agreement on fiscal problems, social change and science.

Insisting that a (as you said probably drunk) guy with a pistol ambling around town shooting things up is analagous, comparable or even similar to a well planned, well armed mass shooting is just not right. It demeans and distracts from your arguments for gun rights. Keeping hundred round clips and military weapons regulated is an effort to limit the damage done. A tactical effort. Your restaurant/theater shooter would have done much more damage with one of those guns. Am I shooting too high?

Yes.  Read and comprehended.  And I agree with pretty much all of it - and hadn't addressed/replied to it until now.  And you made my point precisely with the first paragraph.   "...we continue to look at symptoms and diagnose from conflicting indications rather than looking holistically..."

As for the "guy with the pistol" - he had made a plan.  And was executing that plan.  Just because he was not very good at it is a wonderful thing!  Would that they were all so incompetent!  No telling if he was drunk...no one has said anything about that - it was a snarky conjecture I came up with to illustrate the contempt I have for his mental capability and state, and his overall disgusting existence in general.

We are pointing fingers at every symptom possible without addressing the root cause.  As shown by deranged minds, demonstrated by examples mentioned here, ranging from 1927 to now, the gun is not the problem.  When a gun is inconvenient, a bomb will do.  (Think 16th Street Baptist Church)

The elimination of 100 round clips*** and keeping military weapons regulated - which weapons in reality ARE regulated and have been for many decades...the FACT of which you and others continue to just slide right on by - have been done in the past.  And most of which have been shown to have NO credible evidence of making any kind of difference (remember the so-called "assault weapon ban" which didn't stop any gang violence whatsoever?), since another fact the continues to be ignored is the fact that criminals do NOT obey such rules, and still are able to circumvent those rules relatively easily by criminal elements.  And it still presents an intrusion into the law abiding citizens rights, life and enjoyment of a shooting sport.

So, why not do like you seem to be recommending...looking holistically at the sickness... that would be the rational starting point in this process.  And it is one we abandoned at least 40 years ago.  Instead we bleat "gun control".


I submit that these clowns are seeing the publicity received when these events occur and are getting it in their mind that they, too, can be famous (or infamous) and even though they go out in "a blaze of glory"...if they can kill enough, their name will go down in history.  So, all we have to do to short circuit that "massacre by example" motivation, just don't let the press report the story - the founders certainly didn't mean for the 1st amendment to let newspapers or worse, TV, glorify criminals.  Keep it out of the headlines; there is no notoriety and possibly even no memory of the event - take the "famous" out of the equation.  Gives the notion of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater a whole new context, doesn't it??  We can stop this with just a little bit of careful, judicious censorship.  Certainly no thinking person would be against something that has such obvious benefits to the greater good.

Who would have remembered the school bomber in 1927 if it had not been for the "sensationalization" of the event in the newspapers of the time.  The real problem is the hype surrounding these events and the treatment the press gives them - and you know there are agendas.  Everyone has an agenda - don't show naivete by poo-pooing the idea of an agenda.

What I am more than willing to do - as is the NRA for that matter - is to let my agenda be known right up front with NO ambiguity or distortion or any question whatsoever.  My agenda is to work to preserve the 2nd amendment as relates to the exercise of my rights to own firearms and enjoy a variety of shooting sports.  CNN, CBS, NBC, and others are being dishonest in the fact that they claim to be unbiased reporters of news - they are exhibiting their agenda in detail in recent weeks.  They are doing exactly what Fox does in the other direction.  It is dishonest when either/any of them do it.

And people who say things like "I used to be <fill in the blank in favor or against>, but now I am <fill in the blank against or in favor> are being intellectually dishonest with themselves and anyone/everyone they talk to.  They were not one, then changed to the other.  They may have been "in favor" much like Rosie O'Donnell is "in favor" of gun control and allowing no one to have one, until it comes to her personal situation, where she wants a guy to be around with a gun to protect her and her kids.  Intellectual dishonesty on two levels - first the 'do what I say, not what I do' aspect, then the abominable notion that she and hers are justified or somehow more worthy in having the means to defend themselves while the rest of the unwashed masses should not have the same right.  She's not the only one who exhibits that type of hypocrisy, but is a well know example.


***  I have shot 50 round drum magazines in Thompson machine guns before and while there are 100 round mags available, anyone who uses either is just kind of fooling themselves.  They really aren't very dependable, and if one has mayhem in mind, would be much better served by carrying several 20 round stick magazines.  Goes to a distributed risk analysis.  If you have one 50 rd mag, and something "hangs", you are done.  If you have four or five 20 rd mags, then pull the malfunctioning one out and put in another.  Am pretty sure none of these clowns has used a 100 rd magazine...

[AquaMan]

I understand your viewpoint. I don't think robbing the freedom of press is any more palatable than raiding gun rights but I'm sure restraint could be shown by them. Frankly, I seldom watch the major network news. I'll take in MSNBC for laughs and ammunition, Huffpo for mental gymnastics and occasional comedy by Colbert and Stewart but most of my views were formed decades ago. I am stunned at how Yahoo spins news into politics and no one seems to notice.

Let me ask you this. A couple of years ago a guy was shooting into the Arkansas River and strangely enough missed the river entirely a few times. The bullets travelled across the river, through a kitchen window and past a woman making dinner. What would be your response to this story? Was the shooter being irresponsible? Should he be liable for damage from the bullets? Should a public river be off limits to firearms? And is a regulation limiting this activity acceptable to you?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Civilized society....seems like the Swiss have issues, too.  Legal and mental.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18773158

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let me ask you this. A couple of years ago a guy was shooting into the Arkansas River and strangely enough missed the river entirely a few times. The bullets travelled across the river, through a kitchen window and past a woman making dinner. What would be your response to this story? Was the shooter being irresponsible? Should he be liable for damage from the bullets? Should a public river be off limits to firearms? And is a regulation limiting this activity acceptable to you?

How could there be any doubt that he is liable?  He was grossly irresponsible.  If he had killed someone, I would consider that to be extremely serious...don't know what level of homicide that might be, but seems like negligent homicide would at least be on the table as a starting point...??  Accidents are possible and do occur, but there should be some serious skepticism and much investigation.

There are regulations concerning just about everything related to shooting sports at not only city, but state and federal levels.  I bet he was shooting inside the city limits, which is the first issue.  Check city rules.  Check the Oklahoma Wildlife department hunting/fishing regulations.  I'm betting there is more at state level regarding rivers, just am not familiar, since I don't river shoot.  Check federal laws - I don't think the Arkansas is considered navigable here, but further down, it definitely is - that's just something I am unfamiliar with, since it has never directly applied to any of my activities.  I would expect there to be plenty of stuff...

Anyone with a firearm has the absolute responsibility to educate themselves in gun safety handling and use.  It is very difficult to cover every possible eventuality, but the NRA has training classes available - and has for well over 100 years.  Not sure how it is today, since I have been away from that scene for a while, but I bet there are local clubs here that offer basic safety courses...most likely NRA associated.

River off limits?  Well, that is a context question.  One of the incidents I have mentioned about someone trying to kill me was on the Arkansas - and where he was, shooting was off limits - he was in the city of Bixby.  Down south of where the barbeque event is held every year - long ago when it was only a sand bank and no housing for a long ways in several directions.  Rivers can be safe places to hunt, but there must be even more understanding of what happens when a bullet hits water - it can not doubt be dangerous and should never be in the direction of anything you don't want to shoot - as with every discharge of a firearm.  Guy was stupid - couldn't even hit the water he was aiming at??  And if he had, at what angle, and how likely a ricochet?  On the other side of that, the Swamp People - no matter how goofy they are otherwise - have only shown shooting at a river that has little likelihood of hurting anyone other than themselves.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Here is a nice level of government guidance for people...we could avoid many issues of bullying in the schools, I bet.  And that would lead to fewer issues that we hear about from time to time where someone has been tormented by schoolmates for years, then snaps and goes on a violence spree... easy solution.  Again goes to that pesky 1st amendment thing that lets everyone just say any old thing they want, even when it is hurtful or disagreeable. 

http://news.yahoo.com/icelandic-girl-fights-her-own-name-074758814.html



And right here - lest anyone think that any of my comments on restricting the 1st are anything anywhere near serious - let me assure you, they are not.  What America needs is more free speech!

[AquaMan]

I use that story as a litmus test for deciding the sanity of gun rights activists. Your answer seems reasonable. I have to say, its the first reasonable answer I've received. Most simply say that is just the unfortunate result of the protection of our second amendment rights and if he was on his own property, then he is safe. No regulation required. And one of those responses was from a county deputy.

In fact the guy was on his own property but was shooting into a public waterway. He may as well have been sitting in a penthouse suite (private property) shooting into the town square (public property).

I also was on the river a few years ago kayaking up by the dam and watched in dismay as bullets began to spray water around me. At first I thought it was fish, but the nearby popping noise clued me in. A young man was target practicing on the land above us. We yelled at him and he was as surprised as we were. Few people know that even a 22 can easily travel a mile and still be deadly.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I use that story as a litmus test for deciding the sanity of gun rights activists. Your answer seems reasonable. I have to say, its the first reasonable answer I've received. Most simply say that is just the unfortunate result of the protection of our second amendment rights and if he was on his own property, then he is safe. No regulation required. And one of those responses was from a county deputy.

With rights go responsibilities.  Sometimes lesser, sometimes much greater.  And this one is very high on both ends - right and responsibility.

I have heard of national cases where someone "casually" shot in the air and a bullet went somewhere unintended and injured or killed someone - and were prosecuted for it.  They should be.  Kind of like the idea of shooting in the air on 4th July, or New Years....the gunfire around me started about 10 minutes after midnight this year.  Shooting in the air is the ultimate in irresponsibility. 

I have stated before that I love loud noises accompanied by bright flashes of light - fireworks type stuff - and shooting a gun can certainly provide that to a satisfying degree.  But it must be done responsibly - know where and what your target is, and that it is safe as possible.

[TeeDub]

1.    All guns are always loaded.
2.    Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3.    Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4.    Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

1.    All guns are always loaded.
2.    Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3.    Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4.    Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Four most important commandments of gun handling.