PDA

View Full Version : 10 Killed in Minnesota School Shooting...



CbusRed
03-22-2005, 12:23 AM
Horrible....


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting


http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/ap120a.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/SIG=br2v03/*http://www.ap.org)
10 Dead in Minn. Teen Rampage, Police Say

28 minutes ago
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo3.gif (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6063&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting) U.S. National - AP (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/addtomy/*http://add.my.yahoo.com/content?id=6063&.src=yn&.done=http%3a//news.yahoo.com/news%3ftmpl=story%26u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting)

By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer

BEMIDJI, Minn. - A high school student went on a shooting rampage on an Indian reservation Monday, killing his grandparents at their home and then seven people at his school, grinning and waving as he fired, authorities and witnesses said. The suspect apparently killed himself after exchanging gunfire with police.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050322/thumb.sge.uzh33.220305050930.photo00.photo.default-178x298.jpg (javascript: rs()
AFP (javascript: rs() http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gifSlideshow: Eight Killed in Minn. High School Shooting (javascript: rs()


It was the nation's worst school shooting since the Columbine massacre in 1999 that killed 13 people.



One student said her classmates pleaded with the gunman to stop shooting.



"You could hear a girl saying, 'No, Jeff, quit, quit. Leave me alone. What are you doing?" student Sondra Hegstrom told The Pioneer of Bemidji, using the name of the suspected shooter.



Before the shootings at Red Lake High School, the suspect's grandparents were shot in their home and died later. There was no immediate indication of the gunman's motive.



In addition to the shooter, the death toll at the school included five students, a teacher and a security guard, FBI (news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting/14647233/*http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?fr=news-storylinks&p=%22FBI%22&c=&n=20&yn=c&c=news&cs=nw) - web sites (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/DailyNews/manual/ap/ap_on_re_us/school_shooting/14647233/*http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=web-storylinks&p=FBI)) spokesman Paul McCabe said in Minneapolis.



Fourteen to 15 other students were injured, McCabe said. Some were being cared for in Bemidji, about 20 miles south of Red Lake. Authorities closed roads to the reservation in far northern Minnesota while they investigated the shootings.



Hegstrom described the shooter grinning and waving at a student his gun was pointed at, then swiveling to shoot someone else. "I looked him in the eye and ran in the room, and that's when I hid," she told The Pioneer.



McCabe declined to talk about a possible connection between the suspect and the couple killed at the home, but Red Lake Fire Director Roman Stately said they were the grandparents of the gunman. He identified the shooter's grandfather as Daryl Lussier, a longtime officer with the Red Lake Police Department, and said Lussier's guns may have been used in the shootings.



Stately said the shooter had two handguns and a shotgun.



"After he shot a security guard, he walked down the hallway shooting and went into a classroom where he shot a teacher and more students," Stately told Minneapolis television station KARE.



Students and a teacher, Diane Schwanz, said the gunman tried to break down a door to get into her classroom.



"I just got on the floor and called the cops," Schwanz told the Pioneer. "I was still just half-believing it."



Ashley Morrison, another student, had taken refuge in Schwanz's classroom. With the shooter banging on the door, she dialed her mother on her cell phone. Her mother, Wendy Morrison, said she could hear gunshots on the line.



"'Mom, he's trying to get in here and I'm scared,'" Ashley Morrison told her mother.



All of the dead students were found in one room. One of them was a boy believed to be the shooter, McCabe said. He would not comment on reports that the boy shot himself and said it was too early to speculate on a motive.



Martha Thunder's 15-year-old son, Cody, was being treated for a gunshot wound to the hip.







"He heard gunshots and the teacher said 'No, that's the janitor's doing something,' and the next thing he knew, the kid walked in there and pointed the gun right at him," Thunder said.

The school was evacuated after the shootings and locked down for the investigation, McCabe said.

"It will probably take us throughout the night to really put the whole picture together," he said.

Floyd Jourdain Jr., chairman of the Red Lake Chippewa Tribe, called it "without a doubt the darkest hour" in the group's history. "There has been a considerable amount of lives lost, and we still don't know the total of that," Jourdain said.

It was the nation's worst school shooting since two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 before killing themselves on April 20, 1999.

The rampage in Red Lake was the second fatal school shooting in Minnesota in 18 months. Two students were killed at Rocori High School in Cold Spring in September 2003. Student John Jason McLaughlin, who was 15 at the time, awaits trial in the case.

Red Lake High School, on the Red Lake Indian Reservation, has about 300 students, according to its Web site. The reservation is about 240 miles north of the Twin Cities. It is home to the Red Lake Chippewa Tribe, one of the poorest in the state. According to the 2000 census, 5,162 people lived on the reservation, and all but 91 were Indians. ___

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2005, 07:59 AM
Unfortunate.

I think all schools need an armed guard and a metal detector. Instead of taxes paying for 15 guidance counselors (that few students use anyhow), 5 drug counselors (parents job... like guidance)... today's society calls for more school security.

Only takes one nutjob to take out 9 innocent lives. I'd rather have my tax money being used to protect kids than being spent on two-bit crap like too many guidance counselors (and other things that is the job of the parents).

I am sure my comments will raise some ire here. But a 15-year-old is plenty old enough to brandish a weapon and take lives. Even if the principal and vice-principal are allowed to carry guns... that is better than zero protection or an unarmed security guard.

Nothing good about any school shooting. But it would be "better" if more precautions were taken. Metal detector at minimum!!

Red Heeler
03-22-2005, 08:03 AM
What a terrible tragedy. I cannot imagine what the parents of those students and the community as a whole are going through right now.

One more reason why gun licensing and ownership laws need to be made much much tougher.

TeamCasey
03-22-2005, 08:24 AM
One more reason why gun licensing and ownership laws need to be made much much tougher.

Bingo. How many more kids need to die before people see that? Unfortunately, probably a lot more.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2005, 09:22 AM
Only takes one nutjob to take out 9 innocent lives. I'd rather have my tax money being used to protect kids than being spent on two-bit crap like too many guidance counselors (and other things that is the job of the parents).

I would think a combination of better security and more counseling would do more to prevent future problems than simply increasing security.

The kid had mental problems that should have been identified and treated. A decent counseling program in his school would probably have done more to prevent this tragedy than a fully-armed security staff.

zombie-a-go-go
03-22-2005, 09:31 AM
One more reason why gun licensing and ownership laws need to be made much much tougher.

Negative, ghostrider.

The onus of this tragedy rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents who allowed their child to become a psychopath, and the relatives who owned firearms and failed to secure them. Tougher gun laws restrict the freedoms of those who do practice, fervently, proper firearm safety, and leaves them helpless against those who would not abide by such laws.

The guy who breaks into your house doesn't really care whether or not the government says you can have a firearm, but definitely cares about whether or not you have a gun in the house.

Reds/Flyers Fan
03-22-2005, 09:38 AM
Interesting how these episodes always happen in rural or suburban settings. Columbine HS is in Littleton, a well-to-do Denver suburb. And Red Lake is just remote. These never happen in inner city Detroit or Cincinnati, places you'd expect.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2005, 09:56 AM
Tougher gun laws restrict the freedoms of those who do practice, fervently, proper firearm safety, and leaves them helpless against those who would not abide by such laws.

And for the other side of the argument...

Tougher gun laws usually involve a waiting period to purchase a weapon. Those who do practice firearm safety already own guns and probably don't need to own another weapon instantly. And I don't see how a waiting period leaves someone "helpless."

Also, IMO, those who are fervent practitioners of firearm safety would be likely to follow any new laws. The irresponsible few who object to restrictions would most likely be the ones who would leave their guns unsecured.

The purpose of gun control is not to take guns out of the hands of responsible users, but to prevent irresponsible users from purchasing guns.

That said, I don't think gun control laws would have prevented this situation. This kid had problems.

When I was in 7th grade, a 9th grader brought a rifle to school. He was looking for the jocks that had tormented him for years. He didn't find them, luckily -- they were in the lunchroom (I was in there, too) -- but he wounded two teachers and a student, and he killed the principal.

He was fully trained in gun safety and used his own licensed hunting rifle to do the shooting.

The kid had problems. Problems that gun control laws couldn't have fixed.

Red Heeler
03-22-2005, 10:03 AM
Negative, ghostrider.

The onus of this tragedy rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents who allowed their child to become a psychopath, and the relatives who owned firearms and failed to secure them. Tougher gun laws restrict the freedoms of those who do practice, fervently, proper firearm safety, and leaves them helpless against those who would not abide by such laws.

The guy who breaks into your house doesn't really care whether or not the government says you can have a firearm, but definitely cares about whether or not you have a gun in the house.

I'm not at all sold on the efficacy of gun ownership on deterring crime.

However, I am not talking about restricting the ownership of guns. What I am talking about is getting tough on the irresponsible gun owners. I would like to see mandatory licensing for all guns. If you are caught with a gun for which you have no license, you go to jail for a long time. I would also like to see a requirement that all guns be kept in a locked, built in or otherwise immovable safe. If your gun is used in a crime, you go to jail for a long time.

CbusRed
03-22-2005, 10:09 AM
Interesting how these episodes always happen in rural or suburban settings. Columbine HS is in Littleton, a well-to-do Denver suburb. And Red Lake is just remote. These never happen in inner city Detroit or Cincinnati, places you'd expect.

It happens, seems like every week there is a story about a kid getting caught with a gun in school here in columbus.. just a week ago, a second grader has a 9mm in his bookbag, AT SCHOOL, was playing with it, it went off, and now he is missing a few fingers. The kids older brother is charged with criminal negligence.

TRF
03-22-2005, 10:09 AM
Negative, ghostrider.

The onus of this tragedy rests squarely on the shoulders of the parents who allowed their child to become a psychopath, and the relatives who owned firearms and failed to secure them. Tougher gun laws restrict the freedoms of those who do practice, fervently, proper firearm safety, and leaves them helpless against those who would not abide by such laws.

The guy who breaks into your house doesn't really care whether or not the government says you can have a firearm, but definitely cares about whether or not you have a gun in the house.

You never hear about this happening in London.

Just sayin.

reds1869
03-22-2005, 10:10 AM
And for the other side of the argument...

Tougher gun laws usually involve a waiting period to purchase a weapon. Those who do practice firearm safety already own guns and probably don't need to own another weapon instantly. And I don't see how a waiting period leaves someone "helpless."

Also, IMO, those who are fervent practitioners of firearm safety would be likely to follow any new laws. The irresponsible few who object to restrictions would most likely be the ones who would leave their guns unsecured.

The purpose of gun control is not to take guns out of the hands of responsible users, but to prevent irresponsible users from purchasing guns.

That said, I don't think gun control laws would have prevented this situation. This kid had problems.

When I was in 7th grade, a 9th grader brought a rifle to school. He was looking for the jocks that had tormented him for years. He didn't find them, luckily -- they were in the lunchroom (I was in there, too) -- but he wounded two teachers and a student, and he killed the principal.

He was fully trained in gun safety and used his own licensed hunting rifle to do the shooting.

The kid had problems. Problems that gun control laws couldn't have fixed.

I remember that, and have often wondered when looking at your location.

I am a teacher who has taught in an urban setting and can tell you that the armed guards would do nothing but become the first one shot. And these things DO happen in urban schools--we had two students shot at our school last year. They just don't make the news as no one is shocked and frankly no one in the suburbs cares.

No amount of security will stop a determined person. A Deterent is only a deterent to those who care...and a nutjob could care less about their own life or that of another.

TRF
03-22-2005, 10:17 AM
And for the other side of the argument...

Tougher gun laws usually involve a waiting period to purchase a weapon. Those who do practice firearm safety already own guns and probably don't need to own another weapon instantly. And I don't see how a waiting period leaves someone "helpless."

Also, IMO, those who are fervent practitioners of firearm safety would be likely to follow any new laws. The irresponsible few who object to restrictions would most likely be the ones who would leave their guns unsecured.

The purpose of gun control is not to take guns out of the hands of responsible users, but to prevent irresponsible users from purchasing guns.

That said, I don't think gun control laws would have prevented this situation. This kid had problems.

When I was in 7th grade, a 9th grader brought a rifle to school. He was looking for the jocks that had tormented him for years. He didn't find them, luckily -- they were in the lunchroom (I was in there, too) -- but he wounded two teachers and a student, and he killed the principal.

He was fully trained in gun safety and used his own licensed hunting rifle to do the shooting.

The kid had problems. Problems that gun control laws couldn't have fixed.

How do you determine which kid needs counseling? do all of them? do we counsel every kid? and if so, how?

Seems pretty simple to me. I have zero chance against a kid with a gun. I f he wants to kill me, and he's armed, I'm likely going to die.

Same kid without a gun. Say he brandishes a knife, or a bat, or a metal pipe. I've at least got a fighting chance.

It was an ammendment that made sense 220 years ago. Not so much now. Why is it this country is always the last or among the last to embrace social evolution. Slavery. Equal Rights. Equal rights for women. Guns.

I'm conservative on a lot of issues. Guns will never be one of them.

zombie-a-go-go
03-22-2005, 10:58 AM
You never hear about this happening in London.

Just sayin.

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

CbusRed
03-22-2005, 10:59 AM
Interesting developments today.... Apparently there was a metal detector, but that didnt stop the kid. Also, it appears he asked kids if they believed in god before he shot them. That pretty much classifies this as a copy-cat crime... regardless, I hope all our thoughts and prayers are going out to this small Minnesota town....


http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4306270/detail.html


Witnesses: School Gunman Smiled, Waved During Massacre
10 Dead After Shooting Rampage

POSTED: 8:35 am EST March 22, 2005
UPDATED: 10:31 am EST March 22, 2005

REDBY, Minn. -- The suspect in the worst U.S. school massacre since Columbine smiled and waved as he gunned down five students, a teacher and a guard, asking one of his victims whether he believed in God, witnesses said. The teen's grandfather and his grandfather's wife also were found dead, and the boy killed himself.

Reggie Graves, a student at Red Lake High School, said he was watching a movie about Shakespeare in class Monday when he heard the gunman blast his way past the metal detector at the school's entrance, killing a guard.
AP Image

Then, in a nearby classroom, he heard the gunman say something to his friend Ryan: "He asked Ryan if he believed in God," Graves said. "And then he shot him."

Slideshow: At Least 10 Dead In High School Massacre
Video: Minnesota High School Shooting

The death toll at the Red Lake Indian Reservation in far northern Minnesota made it the nation's worst school shooting since the rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in April 1999 that left 12 students and a teacher, plus the two teen gunmen, dead.

The Minnesota victims included the gunman's grandfather; the grandfather's wife; a school security guard; a teacher; and five other students. At least 14 others were wounded, officials said.

"There's not a soul that will go untouched by the tragic loss that we've experienced here," Floyd Jourdain Jr., chairman of the Red Lake Chippewa Tribe, told WCCO-TV of Minneapolis on Tuesday.

Police said the gunman killed himself after exchanging fire with officers. Red Lake Fire Director Roman Stately said the gunman had two handguns and a shotgun.

"We ask Minnesotans to help comfort the families and friends of the victims who are suffering unimaginable pain by extending prayers and expressions of support," Gov. Tim Pawlenty said.

The shooter was Jeff Weise, a 17-year-old student who had been placed in the school's Homebound program for some violation of policy, said school board member Kathryn Beaulieu. Students in that program stay at home and are tutored by a traveling teacher. Beaulieu said she didn't know what Weise's violation was, and wouldn't be allowed to reveal it if she did.

Beaulieu said school was canceled Tuesday, but plans hadn't been made for the rest of the week.

During the rampage, teachers herded students from one room to another, trying to move away from the sound of the shooting, said Graves, 14. He said some students crouched under desks.

Some pleaded with the gunman to stop. "You could hear a girl saying, 'No, Jeff, quit, quit. Leave me alone. What are you doing?"' Sondra Hegstrom told The Pioneer of Bemidji.

Student Ashley Morrison said she heard shots, then saw the gunman's face peering though a door window of a classroom where she was hiding with several other students. After banging at the door, the shooter walked away and she heard more shots, she said.

"I can't even count how many gunshots you heard, there was over 20. ... There were people screaming, and they made us get behind the desk," she said.

FBI spokesman Paul McCabe said the gunman exchanged gunfire with Red Lake police in a hallway, then retreated to a classroom, where he was believed to have shot himself.

All of the dead students were found in one room, including the teen believed to be the shooter.

Relatives told the St. Paul Pioneer Press that Weise was a loner who usually wore black and was teased by other kids. Relatives told the newspaper his father committed suicide four years ago, and that his mother was living in a Minneapolis nursing home because she suffered brain injuries in a car accident.

Some of the injured were being cared for in Bemidji, about 20 miles south of Red Lake. Authorities closed roads to the reservation in far northern Minnesota while they investigated the shootings.

Police officers were posted at the hospital Monday night to keep reporters from entering. When a reporter approached three men walking across a hospital parking lot, one broke down in tears and the others said they had no comment.

It was the second fatal school shooting in Minnesota in 18 months. Two students were killed at Rocori High School in Cold Spring in September 2003. Student John Jason McLaughlin, who was 15 at the time, awaits trial in the case.

Red Lake High School has about 300 students, according to its Web site.

The reservation is about 240 miles north of the Twin Cities. It is home to the Red Lake Chippewa Tribe, one of the poorest in the state. According to the 2000 census, 5,162 people lived on the reservation, and all but 91 were Indians.

TRF
03-22-2005, 11:24 AM
Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

no guns = no gun deaths.

I hunt for my steak at Wal-Mart.

reds1869
03-22-2005, 11:40 AM
no guns = no gun deaths.

I hunt for my steak at Wal-Mart.

No legal guns=plenty of illegal ones.

zombie-a-go-go
03-22-2005, 11:54 AM
no guns = no gun deaths.

I hunt for my steak at Wal-Mart.

Wow... it's like you didn't even read what I posted.

Does it matter what weapon a murder is committed with? It's still murder. And England's per capita murder rate has gone up since the gun ban. People assume that there's less violent crime in the UK because of the gun ban. People are wrong.

A pithy comment about hunting at supermarkets isn't going to change that.

westofyou
03-22-2005, 12:02 PM
And England's per capita murder rate has gone up since the gun ban.

Is that a "mass" murder increase or a "single" murder increase?

Guns allow killings to multiply in seconds, other weapons don't facillitate destruction as quickly as a firearms do.

You can argue about the parents or the fact that the killings were on a Rez could also lead to stories of poverty, drug abuse, etc... as reasons for the action.

But without guns there would probably be a smaller amount of dead today, to me that can't be debated or defended it's a fact, guns increased the chances that more people would die the minute that kid decided to lash out.

I don't know what should be done, but ignoring the fact that guns and their availablity didn't increased the level of violence in this situation shouldn't be swept under the rug because the kid was whack.

WVRed
03-22-2005, 12:04 PM
No legal guns=plenty of illegal ones.

Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

TRF
03-22-2005, 12:28 PM
Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

Now this is truly an incredulous statement.

Like if i am going to rob someones house, I know which neighborhood has guns or not.


Guns = many deaths quickly.

This isn't a question of violent crime, it's a question of how violent crime escalates to mass murder.

mass murder with a butcher knife is less likely to happen.

zagg, you may think it's pithy, but that's the defense the gun lobby makes every time a child is killed with a gun. that they are for hunting or other nonsense.

If you let the mothers of this country vote on guns, they would be a memory.

Oh, and i love the illegal guns arguement. like that holds a lot of water. most guns used in any crime are purchased how? ding ding ding. legally.

at wal-mart.
at pawn shops.
at gun stores.

legally. It's an object that has one purpose only. to kill something. that's it's job.

Red Heeler
03-22-2005, 12:40 PM
Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?

Are you sure about that?


Although similar to Seattle in many ways, Vancouver has adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns. During the study period, both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery. In Seattle, the annual rate of assault was modestly higher than that in Vancouver (simple assault: relative risk, 1.18; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.20; aggravated assault: relative risk, 1.16; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.19). However, the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. Despite similar overall rates of criminal activity and assault, the relative risk of death from homicide, adjusted for age and sex, was significantly higher in Seattle than in Vancouver (relative risk, 1.63; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.28 to 2.08). Virtually all of this excess risk was explained by a 4.8-fold higher risk of being murdered with a handgun in Seattle as compared with Vancouver. Rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities.

Unassisted
03-22-2005, 12:48 PM
To steer the thread back to the original topic. The shooter made some posts on a Nazi message board. They are preserved in the Google cache.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Dlr86foA5hcJ:www.nazi.org/current/forum/YaBB.cgi%3Fboard%3Dnativeamerican%3Baction%3Dprint %3Bnum%3D1079672948%20%22jeff%20weise%22&hl=en (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache%3Cimg%20src=%22images/smilies/biggrin.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20tit le=%22Biggrin%22%20smilieid=%22235%22%20class=%22i nlineimg%22%20/%3Elr86foA5hcJ:www.nazi.org/current/forum/YaBB.cgi%3Fboard%3Dnativeamerican%3Baction%3Dprint %3Bnum%3D1079672948%20%22jeff%20weise%22&hl=en)

Blimpie
03-22-2005, 12:55 PM
Exactly.

If I was going to rob somebodys house, would I go to a neighborhood that had guns, or one that didnt?In addition to England, I believe that there has been some historical data on the effects of limiting personal gun ownership in some Scandanavian countries recently. IIRC, the violent crime rate soared in these areas once the gun ownership restricitions were implemented. It was, in fact, more like a field day for hardened criminals.

The moral of the story is: The only people who obey gun ownership bans are people who would have been law abiding citizens without said ban. :cry:

TRF
03-22-2005, 12:55 PM
To steer the thread back to the original topic. The shooter made some posts on an Indian Nationalist message board. They are preserved in the Google cache.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Dlr86foA5hcJ:www.nazi.org/current/forum/YaBB.cgi%3Fboard%3Dnativeamerican%3Baction%3Dprint %3Bnum%3D1079672948%20%22jeff%20weise%22&hl=en

disturbed kid.

TRF
03-22-2005, 12:56 PM
In addition to England, I believe that there has been some historical data on the effects of limiting personal gun ownership in some Scandanavian countries recently. IIRC, the violent crime rate soared in these areas once the gun ownership restricitions were implemented. It was, in fact, more like a field day for hardened criminals.

The moral of the story is: The only people who obey gun ownership bans are people who would have been law abiding citizens without said ban. :cry:

no guns = no gun deaths.

Ravenlord
03-22-2005, 12:59 PM
no guns = happy oppresive government


i actually figured one day in study hall that i could kill more people with a knife than i could with a gun....and increase my likelyhoody of not being killed in the process.

Blimpie
03-22-2005, 01:00 PM
no guns = no gun deaths.I am just curious, but what is it like to live inside a vacuum, anyway? :rolleyes:

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2005, 01:05 PM
i actually figured one day in study hall that i could kill more people with a knife than i could with a gun....

Not in one sitting.

Unless you're Brock Samson.

Steve4192
03-22-2005, 01:07 PM
no guns = no gun deaths.
How exactly do you propose achieving this goal of 'no guns'?

There are millions of guns already spread throughout the US population. A firearms ban would stop any new weapons from entering the pool (at least via legal means) but would do nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation.

TRF
03-22-2005, 01:09 PM
Nothing takes place in an instant. I wouldn't care if it took 10 years or 100. find em and melt them for scrap.

I have yet to hear a rational explanation for legally owning a machine gun.

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2005, 01:10 PM
Tougher laws. Use a gun to commit a crime:

* Trigger is pulled = Life w/out parole (unless you get the death penalty).
* Trigger is not pulled = 20 years in prison.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO DO? WHY NOT DO IT?

Is it b/c we need to give some fool who uses a gun to commit a crime a 2nd chance? How many victims of gun violence get a 2nd chance?

Get caught with an illegal (non-registered) gun on your person:

* 1st offense = 10 years in prison.
* 2nd offense = Life w/out parole.

I do not like or own guns. I do not think that we should ban all guns. I think we need to be tougher with sentencing guidelines. Use a gun... pay the price. Why not? Punish those who deserve it... not law-abiding citizens who are gun owners. Build bigger and more prisons if necessary. Make people who collect welfare work at these prisons to EARN that money.

CTA513
03-22-2005, 01:12 PM
no guns might = no gun deaths, but that still doesnt mean no deaths.

if I wanted to kill someone, I could kill them with or without a gun.

I could run someone over with a car, blow someone up with bomb, smash someone up with a bat, cut someones throat with a knife etc....

Also just because a school has a guard or metal detector doesnt mean you cant get a gun inside. Is the guard going to stop someone coming in if that person is pointing a gun at there face?

Steve4192
03-22-2005, 01:18 PM
* Trigger is pulled = Life w/out parole (unless you get the death penalty).
* Trigger is not pulled = 20 years in prison.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO DO? WHY NOT DO IT?
Better start approving tax levies to build more prisons.

The USA already has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other country in the world. Introducing 'mandatory sentencing' in drug cases caused prison populations to explode in the 80s/90s. The american penal system is now so overcrowded that they are being forced to parole violent offenders in order to accomodate the mandatory sentences of drug offenders.

Instituting similar laws in gun cases would just compound the overcrowding and early parole problem. Unless, of course, you are willing to fund a new prison in your neighborhood. Unfortunately , the folks crying "lock 'em up" are all too often the same people people saying "but not on my dime and not in my community".

CbusRed
03-22-2005, 01:19 PM
Gun control is an issue that I can honestly say I am middle of the road on. I see absolutley great points to both sides. So Im not really going to argue about it with anyone. I will however discuss the original topic of the thread.

Blimpie
03-22-2005, 01:30 PM
Tougher laws. Use a gun to commit a crime:

* Trigger is pulled = Life w/out parole (unless you get the death penalty).
* Trigger is not pulled = 20 years in prison.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO DO? WHY NOT DO IT?

Is it b/c we need to give some fool who uses a gun to commit a crime a 2nd chance? How many victims of gun violence get a 2nd chance?

Get caught with an illegal (non-registered) gun on your person:

* 1st offense = 10 years in prison.
* 2nd offense = Life w/out parole.
I do not like or own guns. I do not think that we should ban all guns. I think we need to be tougher with sentencing guidelines. Use a gun... pay the price. Why not? Punish those who deserve it... not law-abiding citizens who are gun owners. Build bigger and more prisons if necessary. Make people who collect welfare work at these prisons to EARN that money.
Why is it so hard to do? Okay, I'll take a stab at that one. At the risk of oversimplification:

Where exactly do you plan to put these people?

Most prisions are ridiculously overcrowded and that is because it far too expensive to keep building them. If your answer is, "Build 'em anyway," then you need to say how you intend to accomplish that task ($$$$). It's really more of the "catch and release" program in this country. As it stands now, we ALREADY let too many convicts out that are not rehabilitated. Have you looked at the rate of recidivism for federal prisioners? It's usually hovering around 90%. The net effect of your plan will be to prematurely parole, say, a registered sex offender to make room for your fellow who just got popped for "having (not murdering with) an unregistered gun--1st offense." He will now need you to find him a bed for his new ten year hitch you just gave him...

Red Heeler
03-22-2005, 01:30 PM
Better start approving tax levies to build more prisons.

The USA already has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other country in the world. Introducing 'mandatory sentencing' in drug cases caused prison populations to explode in the 80s/90s. The american penal system is now so overcrowded that they are being forced to parole violent offenders in order to accomodate the mandatory sentences of drug offenders.

Instituting similar laws in gun cases would just compound the overcrowding and early parole problem. Unless, of course, you are willing to fund a new prison in your neighborhood. Unfortunately , the folks crying "lock 'em up" are all too often the same people people saying "but not on my dime and not in my community".

So your answer is, "Aw, to Heck with it, we don't have anyplace to put 'em. Might as well let 'em keep shootin' up the joint?"

Blimpie
03-22-2005, 01:32 PM
Better start approving tax levies to build more prisons.

The USA already has a higher percentage of its citizens incarcerated than any other country in the world. Introducing 'mandatory sentencing' in drug cases caused prison populations to explode in the 80s/90s. The american penal system is now so overcrowded that they are being forced to parole violent offenders in order to accomodate the mandatory sentences of drug offenders.

Instituting similar laws in gun cases would just compound the overcrowding and early parole problem. Unless, of course, you are willing to fund a new prison in your neighborhood. Unfortunately , the folks crying "lock 'em up" are all too often the same people people saying "but not on my dime and not in my community".Sorry, Steve. I didn't mean to regurgitate your post. You beat me to it. :gac:

Steve4192
03-22-2005, 01:46 PM
Sorry, Steve. I didn't mean to regurgitate your post. You beat me to it. :gac:
That's alright. I liked your fishing analogy better than my explanation.

Steve4192
03-22-2005, 01:57 PM
So your answer is, "Aw, to Heck with it, we don't have anyplace to put 'em. Might as well let 'em keep shootin' up the joint?"
No, but I'm not going to condone some half-arsed political solution that will not work in the real world.

The first thing I'd do is repeal all mandatory sentencing laws. They are nothing more than a band-aid political solution to issues that politicians don't know how to deal with. I'd then get about the business of paroling non-violoent offenders to make room for murderers and rapists.

The second thing I'd do is legalize drugs. That would seriously impact the amount of violent crime associated with the illegal production and distribution of drugs. I'd 'sin tax' the living crap out of the drugs and use the proceeds to fund rehab/recovery programs for users.

As a result, I'd have a lot more prison space available to make sure violent offenders actually serve their sentences. As an added bonus, law enforcement would be freed up to deal with violent criminals rather than wasting their time enforcing the modern equivalent of prohibition.

REDREAD
03-22-2005, 02:06 PM
The second thing I'd do is legalize drugs. That would seriously impact the amount of violent crime associated with the illegal production and distribution of drugs. I'd 'sin tax' the living crap out of the drugs and use the proceeds to fund rehab/recovery programs for users.
.

The problem is if you "sin tax" them hard, the black market will sell them illegally. This is already a problem with cigarettes.

I don't know what the answer is to the drug problem. Maybe some degree of legalization would work, I don't know, but it's a complicated problem. If you could take the people who chose to use them and put them in isolation where they couldn't impact the lives of people who chose not to use them.. then I'm fine with that.. but already there's a problem with our airline pilots, nurses, etc using them when they're illegal. And some of them are very addictive.

CbusRed
03-22-2005, 02:11 PM
The problem is if you "sin tax" them hard, the black market will sell them illegally. This is already a problem with cigarettes.



You can buy black market cigarrettes? Where the hell at? Im tired of paying almost 4 bucks a pack!

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2005, 02:12 PM
I am learning to not argue with Liberal ideas. :)

Peace!!

Ravenlord
03-22-2005, 03:48 PM
Not in one sitting.

Unless you're Brock Samson.
define sitting...it'd be a whole lot easier to just take out strays in the hall for 40 minutes and leave than it would be to go into a room and start shootin.

Ravenlord
03-22-2005, 03:48 PM
You can buy black market cigarrettes? Where the hell at? Im tired of paying almost 4 bucks a pack!
any public school.

Steve4192
03-22-2005, 04:07 PM
I am learning to not argue with Liberal ideas. :)

Man I hope Redsfaithul / Rojo are reading this thread. After some of the political dust-ups I had with those guys, they'll get a kick out of seeing me called out as a bastion of liberal ideas.

Red Heeler
03-22-2005, 05:16 PM
No, but I'm not going to condone some half-arsed political solution that will not work in the real world.

The first thing I'd do is repeal all mandatory sentencing laws. They are nothing more than a band-aid political solution to issues that politicians don't know how to deal with. I'd then get about the business of paroling non-violoent offenders to make room for murderers and rapists.

The second thing I'd do is legalize drugs. That would seriously impact the amount of violent crime associated with the illegal production and distribution of drugs. I'd 'sin tax' the living crap out of the drugs and use the proceeds to fund rehab/recovery programs for users.

As a result, I'd have a lot more prison space available to make sure violent offenders actually serve their sentences. As an added bonus, law enforcement would be freed up to deal with violent criminals rather than wasting their time enforcing the modern equivalent of prohibition.

I would fully support a system similar to the Dutch, where soft drugs (pot) are legalized, but hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, extacy, etc.) are still illegal. Frankly, the War on Drugs has done little to stem pot smoking anyway. When I was in high school in the late '80s, it was easier to get high than it was to get drunk on hard liquor.

I would also go along with reviewing non-violent offender sentences.

However, I would make the posession of an unlicensed firearm, violation of gun safety laws, and any crime committed while in possession of a firearm the equivalent of a violent crime.

Raisor
03-22-2005, 05:45 PM
You can buy black market cigarrettes? Where the hell at? Im tired of paying almost 4 bucks a pack!


Former WWF Tag Team Champion Dino Bravo was involved in the Canadian cig blackmarket. Got whacked too, right out of the Sopranos.

GAC
03-22-2005, 07:53 PM
Interesting how these episodes always happen in rural or suburban settings. Columbine HS is in Littleton, a well-to-do Denver suburb. And Red Lake is just remote. These never happen in inner city Detroit or Cincinnati, places you'd expect.

That's because it's a regularity in the streets. ;)

I read this article in Sunday's DDN. I found it quite disturbing. It seems alot of today's youth find an outlet for their anger by taking a route (guns) that ends up being deadly.

Teen-age bravado, war of words can lead to deadly, devastating results

By Kelli Wynn

Dayton Daily News


DAYTON — The fight would be in the 3100 block of Prescott Avenue, and Mike Goodner Stewart and two of his teen friends decided they needed more backup.

So Stewart, only 17, called his half brother Kelly "Donell" Goodner, another 17-year-old.

Goodner got the call and immediately left his Trotwood residence, taking the four-mile, 10-minute drive to Dayton to be by his half-brother's side.

That decision would leave Goodner in a local hospital being treated for at least one shotgun blast that ripped through his stomach and has left him damaged for life.

This particular sequence of events — a challenge to fight with fists that quickly escalated into a battle involving weapons — worries community members concerned about the sometimes deadly turn teen confrontations can take. The events also provide a glimpse into what can happen when teen-age bravado goes too far.

"They will run to a fight

instead of turning away, said Marlon Shackelford, youth specialist for Omega Baptist Church. "This society teaches us drama is OK. (But) drama leads to trauma."

Donell Goodner ran to the fight, right into the drama. Now, his grandmother said, he's lost his stomach and spleen and is hooked up to a feeding tube.

"He'll be hurting for the rest of his life," said the grandmother, Shirley Robinson.

Robinson also said Goodner and another 17-year-old, Tearonn D. Daniel, knew each other, though she was unsure how well. Daniel died Thursday night after an unidentified gunmen shot six people.

On March 12, Stewart said he was sitting in his living room with a group of acquaintances, boys and girls, when one of the girls' cell phones rang. The voice on the other end demanded to know why the girls were at Stewart's house, why they would hang with a loser and using expletives for emphasis. One of Stewart's 15-year-old male friends overheard the comments, and from there, it was on. Stewart and his crew, the YAK — young and krazy — agreed to meet and fight the people on the other end of the cell phone.

They agreed they would fight with fists.

Stewart and his friends hoped a large crowd would show up so they could start "fighting everybody. We hope they bring a lot of people ...We didn't want to jump nobody. So everything would be fair," Stewart said, recalling the conversation prior to the fight.

Stewart arrived with four others — three teen males and a pregnant female — from the YAK. The group isn't a gang, Stewart said, but a "set" made up of family and close friends. The opponents arrived with eight fighters — five males, three females, and Stewart thought some looked older than 18. They met on Prescott Avenue — ironically, near a church called Spirit of Peace about 10 p.m., and it was on — verbal jousting, posturing, and finally, fists fights.

But at some point, someone flashed a BB gun. Detective Julie Swisher said police found a pellet gun at the scene but don't know who it belonged to.

One of the opponents went to a nearby car, pulled out a shotgun, and started firing. Goodner started running, ran all the way back to Stewart's house. There, Goodner collapsed on an upstairs bed, crying. Stewart soon found out why —his half brother had been shot. The left side of Goodner's leather jacket, worn on top of a hoodie and a couple of T-shirts, looked as if it had been clawed by a cat.

Police have not determined how many times Goodner was shot "because of the type of shot he was shot with...The exact type of shotgun shell will have to be determined by the lab," Swisher said.

Robinson said she wasn't surprised her grandson got involved in the fight. "He is protective of his family," Robinson said.

At first, police thought the fight was over a girl, but now say a war of words caused the battle.

"It was about fighting and we got the best of them...so they started shooting," Stewart said.

But the fighting too often spirals into injury and death.

"Young men cannot take the butt whipping" and that's why they use weapons, said Sean Walton, Juvenile Mentoring Project Coordinator for Community Action Partnership. The partnership mentors teens.

"It's not fear of safety. It's fear of embarassment and loss of approval from friends," Walton said. He also noted that some youth who are afraid to be seen as "soft or weak" if they walk away from an argument.

Shackelford added: "They feel they have to save face — you know who I am and if you cross the line, I'm going to get with you. They are scared of the repercussions. If I beat you up with my fists one on one, I'm scared that you might come back and shoot so I might as well shoot you."

Al "Coach" Powell, adjunct Clinical Associate Professor for Stony Brook Health Sciences Center in Stony Brook, NY, said: "When weapons were not plentiful we used our fists and words. Now we use words in order to set up our opportunities to use our weapons."

Robinson said she goes to the hospital every day, right before work, to see her grandson. He once had dreams of becoming a boxer, and was trying to get his GED. She said Goodner's distraught mother is trying to cope with the tragedy.

"Donell is a loving little boy," Robinson said. "I wish Donell wouldn't have went because of the outcome...I used to tell him all the time, don't fight because these kids are crazy, they will hurt you out here."

Redsfaithful
03-22-2005, 08:57 PM
No, but I'm not going to condone some half-arsed political solution that will not work in the real world.

The first thing I'd do is repeal all mandatory sentencing laws. They are nothing more than a band-aid political solution to issues that politicians don't know how to deal with. I'd then get about the business of paroling non-violoent offenders to make room for murderers and rapists.

The second thing I'd do is legalize drugs. That would seriously impact the amount of violent crime associated with the illegal production and distribution of drugs. I'd 'sin tax' the living crap out of the drugs and use the proceeds to fund rehab/recovery programs for users.

As a result, I'd have a lot more prison space available to make sure violent offenders actually serve their sentences. As an added bonus, law enforcement would be freed up to deal with violent criminals rather than wasting their time enforcing the modern equivalent of prohibition.

You're speaking my language.

I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to drugs, prostitution, porn, and sex. The less government involvement the better.

If Pfizer could make billions selling marijuana then it'd be legal. But anyone can grow it, so it's not.

School shootings are a byproduct of having easily accessible firearms. It's fine to argue that the benefits of having the right to bear arms exceed the drawbacks, but don't plead innocence. School shootings don't happen in the UK and there's a reason for that. If guns are everywhere and easily obtainable then people are going to get shot. It's not terribly surprising.

I personally choose not to live my life in fear of armed home robbery so I will not be purchasing a firearm for my personal home defense. I think it's a bit of a shame that others go through life so afraid.

People who watch television news think crime is by far more prevalent than people who get their news from other sources. I wonder if people who watch television news are more likely to buy guns?

The entire debate on gun control reminds me a great deal of the debate on capital punishment. Neither the death penalty nor guns deter crime, but they make people "feel" better. That feeling of security comes at a pretty steep price though, and we paid part of that price in Minnesota on Monday.

Unassisted
03-22-2005, 09:08 PM
The shooter was a LiveJournal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/weise/) user, too.

Reds4Life
03-22-2005, 09:12 PM
If you let the mothers of this country vote on guns, they would be a memory.

It’s a good thing we have the 2nd amendment then, isn’t it? :)

TC81190
03-22-2005, 10:13 PM
Note to self:

When I have kids, they are getting HOMESCHOOLED.

Red Thunder
03-23-2005, 10:29 AM
How exactly do you propose achieving this goal of 'no guns'?

There are millions of guns already spread throughout the US population. A firearms ban would stop any new weapons from entering the pool (at least via legal means) but would do nothing about the millions of guns already in circulation.

I guess you have to start at some point although it might take decades to show a considerable statistical improvement. I wonder if Amercians are generally much more brutal than for example Europeans so that they feel the need to defend themselves even with weapons against each other. Logic: I need a weapon because my neighbor (or anyone else) can also legally purchase one.

TRF
03-23-2005, 10:42 AM
It’s a good thing we have the 2nd amendment then, isn’t it? :)


Tell that to those kids mothers.

Article [XVIII].

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Dumb amendments can be repealed.

We can allow African Americans and Women to vote too.

But keep touting an amendment that only made sense in the 1700's.

The Founding fathers never meant for the constitution to be rigid document. It was meant to be a living document able to adjust to the times. The subsequent Bill of Rights proves that. At times amendments are needed. Isn't it time we realized Britain isn't coming back? Isn't it time we realized that the government is not our enemy, and even if they were, how much good could a local militia do against tanks? isn't it time we make sure our government does right by it's citizens and it's future through the democratic process, and the evolution of society. And for God's sake, what does owning a gun have to do with any of that?

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 11:50 AM
The Founding fathers never meant for the constitution to be rigid document.

The very purpose of a Constitution IS to provide rigidity; it safeguards the rights of citizens from being stripped away on the emotional whims of the majority

Edit: BTW, it's amendment, not ammendment

Johnny Footstool
03-23-2005, 12:29 PM
The very purpose of a Constitution IS to provide rigidity; it safeguards the rights of citizens from being stripped away on the emotional whims of the majority

The current administration doesn't seem to agree.

CbusRed
03-23-2005, 12:38 PM
If guns kill people....
Then I blame my pencil for spelling errors...


just a thought.

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 12:53 PM
If guns kill people....
Then I blame my pencil for spelling errors...


just a thought.

And blame auto makers for all the deaths in automobile crashes each year. :)

Redsfaithful
03-23-2005, 01:04 PM
If guns kill people....
Then I blame my pencil for spelling errors...


just a thought.

Knives are potentially lethal as well. But, unlike guns, they have other purposes and also don't make it easy to kill multiple people in a short amount of time.

Of course I'm just repeating what others have said in this thread already.

The automobile thing always gets tossed out there Reds4Life and it's a ridiculous comparison unless you honestly think guns have the same profound positive impact on society that automobiles do.

TRF
03-23-2005, 01:04 PM
If guns kill people....
Then I blame my pencil for spelling errors...


just a thought.

Well that's the second dumbest arguement.

The pencil is a writing tool. not a spell check tool.

a gun is a weapon only.

once again, gun right's activist make bad comparisons to simply argue a simple fact. "I like guns, so i should keep them."

TRF
03-23-2005, 01:06 PM
The very purpose of a Constitution IS to provide rigidity; it safeguards the rights of citizens from being stripped away on the emotional whims of the majority

Edit: BTW, it's amendment, not ammendment

Thanks, my misspelling completely negated my arguement. how stupid of me. :allovrjr:

Chip R
03-23-2005, 01:41 PM
Former WWF Tag Team Champion Dino Bravo was involved in the Canadian cig blackmarket. Got whacked too, right out of the Sopranos.
Well, that's a big help. Dino Bravo's dead so that doesn't help these folks wanting to buy cigs on the black market out much, does it? ;)

CbusRed
03-23-2005, 01:41 PM
Well that's the second dumbest arguement.

The pencil is a writing tool. not a spell check tool.

a gun is a weapon only.

once again, gun right's activist make bad comparisons to simply argue a simple fact. "I like guns, so i should keep them."

So by your logic, guns walk around by themselves, shooting people by themselves all the time? If thats the case, then screw guns, I hate them, shady bastards.

But if I remember correctly, It takes a finger to pull the trigger of a gun, and that finger must be controlled by a brain, the same brain that controls thought process, the same brain that recognizes morals and values, the same brain that houses the knowledge that was given by its parents and teachers, the same brain that practices restraint, the same brain that tells me maybe it isnt a good idea to kick the crap out the moron that cut me off on the freeway this morning. the same brain that knows that taking another human beings life is wrong.


jeez, I didnt think I would have to explain myself that in-depth.


I understand your points. I am not a gun user, probably never will be, but I do think it is ridiculous that we take accountability away from the parties responsible for killings, and place it upon the lifeless, inanimate object that was used for the killing.

Say they were cutting down a tree in your backyard, and the tree fell on your house? who do you charge the damage to, the lumberjack? or the tree? Absurd, isnt it?

CbusRed
03-23-2005, 01:43 PM
Who gets paid for fixing your car? The mechanic? or the socket-wrench?

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 01:54 PM
The automobile thing always gets tossed out there Reds4Life and it's a ridiculous comparison unless you honestly think guns have the same profound positive impact on society that automobiles do.

Guns do have a positive impact on society. They help enforce our laws, defend our freedoms and are a legitimate hobby for millions of Americans. A gun is a tool, it can be used for good or evil, but that function is determined entirely by the user, NOT the object itself.

The automobile comparison is not useless. The Center for Disease Control did a study of firearms in 2001 and found you are 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than by being shot. By the rational “if it can hurt people, ban it” then we should have banned cars a long time ago.


once again, gun right's activist make bad comparisons to simply argue a simple fact. "I like guns, so i should keep them."

You mean like your argument, "I don't like guns so nobody should have them and we should repeal the 2nd amendment"?

zombie-a-go-go
03-23-2005, 02:01 PM
Well that's the second dumbest arguement.

The dumbest, of course, being that taking away guns will somehow quell the violence in this country.

Shooting deaths are byproducts of an unhealthy culture, a society that places far too much value on machismo and has an unhealthy fascination with making yourself look good by tearing down another.

You've got to treat the cause, not the symptom.

Until then you're just tilting at windmills if you think banning personal firearms is going to solve anything.

Rojo
03-23-2005, 02:24 PM
Man I hope Redsfaithul / Rojo are reading this thread. After some of the political dust-ups I had with those guys, they'll get a kick out of seeing me called out as a bastion of liberal ideas.

I am reading and I almost completely agree with your diagnosis. I say "almost" because I would treat legalization on a drug-by-drug basis.

And, FWIW, the gun issue doesn't animate me much. Like a good liberal, I think some common-sense regulations (waiting periods, no assault weapons, etc.) help. But, I remember reading that when America's non-gun violence is compared to other nation's non-gun voilence, the multiple remains the same. In other words we stab and club people way more than anyone else. Micheal Moore had it right in Bowling for Columbine. Its the culture of fear and mistrust. And that's largely political.

TRF
03-23-2005, 03:08 PM
The Constitution is supposed to be a living document subject to being amended. The second Amendment while necessary in the 1700's is not necessary today.

TRF
03-23-2005, 03:11 PM
The dumbest, of course, being that taking away guns will somehow quell the violence in this country.

Shooting deaths are byproducts of an unhealthy culture, a society that places far too much value on machismo and has an unhealthy fascination with making yourself look good by tearing down another.

You've got to treat the cause, not the symptom.

Until then you're just tilting at windmills if you think banning personal firearms is going to solve anything.

Never said it would quell violence.

I only said it would stop gun deaths.

When was the last time someone climbed a clocktower and started picking people of with a club?

How many kids would have been killed in Minnesota had that kid had no access to guns?

Maybe he would have still killed 1-2. maybe 3 even. no way he gets 10.

TRF
03-23-2005, 03:13 PM
Guns do have a positive impact on society. They help enforce our laws, defend our freedoms and are a legitimate hobby for millions of Americans. A gun is a tool, it can be used for good or evil, but that function is determined entirely by the user, NOT the object itself.


Guns in the hands of police and military, I get that.

A legitimate hobby? please. yes a gun is a tool. to kill something. A scredriver is a tool too, but i don't saw wood with it.

CbusRed
03-23-2005, 03:16 PM
How many kids would have been killed in Minnesota had that kid had no access to guns?

Maybe he would have still killed 1-2. maybe 3 even. no way he gets 10.

There is no way you can say that, you just dont know.. If someone wants to do a mass killing, they will do it, regardless of how they need to get it done.

Perhaps without guns this kid could have used bombs, with that there could have been even more casualties.

or perhaps poison gas.

or maybe arson.


I dont know why it is so hard to understand that this isnt about the tool being used, its about the people using them.

Red Heeler
03-23-2005, 03:18 PM
The Constitution is supposed to be a living document subject to being amended. The second Amendment while necessary in the 1700's is not necessary today.

Nobody in their right mind believes that any citizen with enough money should be able to own a nuclear weapon. Yet, as an armament, nuclear weapons should be protected under the second amendment. Why are other types of armaments held so sacred?

In truth, I really don't have any problem with gun ownership, per se. However, I do think that extremely strict licensing laws are necessary. In addition, I think that guns should have to be kept under lock and key except when in use. Gun owners who allow their guns to fall into the hands of those who would use them to commit a crime should be held just as responsible as the person who uses that gun. The penalties for violating these laws should be very stiff.

zombie-a-go-go
03-23-2005, 03:18 PM
I dont know why it is so hard to understand that this isnt about the tool being used, its about the people using them.

Because solving one is infinitely easier than solving the other, and for the most part, this country is lazy.

We like our bread and circuses, and woe betide the one who tells us they're not good for us.

Red Heeler
03-23-2005, 03:19 PM
There is no way you can say that, you just dont know.. If someone wants to do a mass killing, they will do it, regardless of how they need to get it done.

Perhaps without guns this kid could have used bombs, with that there could have been even more casualties.

or perhaps poison gas.

or maybe arson.


I dont know why it is so hard to understand that this isnt about the tool being used, its about the people using them.

What purpose does a gun serve other than to kill something?

zombie-a-go-go
03-23-2005, 03:22 PM
What purpose does a gun serve other than to kill something?

Why are you focusing on the gun and not the mindset that drives people in our country to commit murder with them?

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 03:28 PM
Guns in the hands of police and military, I get that.

A legitimate hobby? please. yes a gun is a tool. to kill something. A scredriver is a tool too, but i don't saw wood with it.

So skeet and target shooting are not a hobbies? You might want to inform the millions of people that participate in it every year. While your at it, better inform the Olympics too.

Did you even read the facts of this school shooting? Guess where the kid got the guns from? A police officer. So limiting guns to military and police would NOT have prevented this.


The second Amendment while necessary in the 1700's is not necessary today.

According to who, you? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't necessary. I'm sure there are people out there who don't like the fact women or african americans have the right to vote and feel those admendments aren't necessary, so should we repeal those as well?

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 03:30 PM
What purpose does a gun serve other than to kill something?

Hobby and sport.

CbusRed
03-23-2005, 03:31 PM
It is just as easy to get Guns in Canada as it is in the US, yet we DWARF their gun-crime rate. I think that pretty much kills your "guns kill people, not people kill people" argument.

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 03:38 PM
It is just as easy to get Guns in Canada as it is in the US, yet we DWARF their gun-crime rate. I think that pretty much kills your "guns kill people, not people kill people" argument.

Canada has national gun registration too, and it did nothing to slow thier crime rate.

TRF
03-23-2005, 04:26 PM
A. Nuclear weapons are not protected by the second amendment.

B. I believe that police officer was his grandfather, unless I am mistaken, so point taken, but IMO police firearms should not be taken home.

C. Slavery was once condoned in this country. we got past that. we can get past guns.

D. What type of skeet shooting is done with a MAC-10?

KittyDuran
03-23-2005, 04:32 PM
A. Nuclear weapons are not protected by the second amendment.

B. I believe that police officer was his grandfather, unless I am mistaken, so point taken, but IMO police firearms should not be taken home.

C. Slavery was once condoned in this country. we got past that. we can get past guns.

D. What type of skeet shooting is done with a MAC-10?

About B. Was his grandfather retired? I know when my Dad retired from the force, he received his revolver as a retirement present from the city. [BTW, he never used it in 20 years] He keeps it somewhere in his room, don't know if it loaded or not.

CbusRed
03-23-2005, 04:33 PM
About B. Was his grandfather retired? I know when my Dad retired from the force, he received his revolver as a retirement present from the city. [BTW, he never used it in 20 years] He keeps it somewhere in his room, don't know if it loaded or not.


Doesnt sound like it, because the kid drove to the school in his grandfathers cruiser. Unless they give cruisers for retirement presents too! :MandJ:

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 04:41 PM
D. What type of skeet shooting is done with a MAC-10?

You didn't say that, you implied guns aren't a legitimate hobby, you made no mention of specific weapons, just a blanket statement. No changing the subject please.

TRF
03-23-2005, 04:44 PM
ahh, but it isn't changing the subject, because to the gun lobby, all guns are created equal. bullets too. BTW when targeting skeet, does one need "cop killer" bullets or is that optional?

Is a sawed off shotgun used for that? an Uzi?

What purpose other than to kill something is a .357 used for?

KittyDuran
03-23-2005, 04:47 PM
Saturday Night Special
From the album Skynyrd's Innyrds.

Two feets they come a-creepin'
Like a black cat do.
Two bodies a-laying restless,
Creeper thinks he's got nothing to lose.

So he creeps into the house, yea,
Unlocks the door,
And as the man's reachin' for his trousers
Shoots him full of .38 holes.

Mister Saturday Night, you're special,
You got a barrel that's blue and cold.
They ain't no good for nothing
But put a man six feet in a hole.

Big Jim's been a-drinkin' whiskey,
playin' poker on a losin' night,
Pretty soon old Jim starts thinkin'
Somebody's been cheatin' and lyin'.

Big Jim commenced to fightin',
I wouldn't you no lies.
Big Jim done pulled his pistol,
Shot his friend right between the eyes.

Mister Saturday Night, you're special,
You got a barrel that's blue and cold.
They ain't no good for nothing
But put a man six feet in a hole.

Oh, that's a Saturday Night Special
For twenty dollars you can buy yourself one, too.

Handguns are made for killin',
They ain't no good for nothing else.
And if you like to drink your whiskey,
You might even shoot yourself.

So why don't we dump 'em, people,
To the bottom of the sea
Before some old fool comes around here,
Wants to shoot either you or me?

Mister Saturday Night, you're special,
You got a barrel that's blue and cold.
You ain't no good for nothing
But put a man six feet in a hole.

That's a Saturday Night Special,
And I'd like to tell you what you can do with it, too.

TC81190
03-23-2005, 05:00 PM
If that kid had used a knife, club etc., he may have been able to kill people, but not as quickly or efficiently, and there is no arguing that.

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 05:00 PM
ahh, but it isn't changing the subject, because to the gun lobby, all guns are created equal. bullets too. BTW when targeting skeet, does one need "cop killer" bullets or is that optional?

Is a sawed off shotgun used for that? an Uzi?

What purpose other than to kill something is a .357 used for?

You changing the subject, you said guns weren't a hobby, and I named instances where they indeed are. Shooting is even an Olympic sport. You seem to be under the impression all firearms are evil machine guns equipped with blood seeking bullets and their owners are out to inflict pain on the world, they aren't. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who do no harm to anyone.

KTW rounds, or so called "cop killer", bullets were designed by the police! They were designed to penetrate hard targets such as windshields and have never been legally made available for public purchase. Moreover, KTW rounds do not pierce body armor. The “cop killer” name is a myth.

A sawed of shotgun is already illegal if the barrel is below 14 inches. No such equipped gun can be legally purchased in this country by civilians without going through a lengthy process with the ATF and paying a $200 tax stamp.

.357 is a common caliber used at many bowling pin and revolver shoots. I used to go through thousands of rounds of .357 sig when I was with the Secret Service. My duty weapon was a Sig Sauer chambered in .357 sig that I would go target shooting with all the time. According to your logic I wouldn't have been able to do that because a) I wouldn't have been allowed to take my weapon home with me b) .357 is only designed to kill. :dflynn:

Red Heeler
03-23-2005, 06:31 PM
Really, I don't care about banning anything outside of assault weapons. I have plenty of friends who enjoy hunting and shooting, and I have no desire to take that away from them.

For the pro-gun crowd. What would be the downside to:

1) Requiring licensing for all guns including ID of each gun through its bullet signature.

2) Requiring that all guns be kept under lock and key (preferrably in a built in safe) except when in use.

3) Holding the licensee of the a gun responsible if they allow their gun to fall into the hands of "the wrong people."

4) Stiff penalties for violating the above.

Reds4Life
03-23-2005, 07:07 PM
Really, I don't care about banning anything outside of assault weapons. I have plenty of friends who enjoy hunting and shooting, and I have no desire to take that away from them.

For the pro-gun crowd. What would be the downside to:

1) Requiring licensing for all guns including ID of each gun through its bullet signature.

2) Requiring that all guns be kept under lock and key (preferrably in a built in safe) except when in use.

3) Holding the licensee of the a gun responsible if they allow their gun to fall into the hands of "the wrong people."

4) Stiff penalties for violating the above.

1) Ballistic fingerprinting has a multitude of problems. The California Department of Justice had their Bureau of Forensic Services prepare a report on the feasibility of this idea back in 2001; the results were not what the anti-gun crowd was expecting. The report found the lands and grooves left by a weapon on a bullet was not feasible because they can be altered by just about anyone in 5 minutes with simple hand tools and are not permanently defined like fingerprints or DNA. Further, not all firearms create such impressions on bullets.

The study cited several examples, such as the MLK case. The rifle used in the Martin Luther King assassination was test fired 18 times under court supervision, and the results showed that no two bullets were marked alike. Every test bullet was different because it was going over plating created by the previous bullet. The study further found the automated systems used to match bullets with know specimens were only accurate about 38% of the time.

The National Fraternal Order of Police even weighed in on this issue in 2002 when it released "F.O.P. Viewpoint: Ballistics Imaging and Comparison Technology." In that document the FOP stated the following:

“The National Fraternal Order of Police does not support any Federal requirement to register privately owned firearms with the Federal government,” the group said. “And, even if such a database is limited to firearms manufactured in the future, the cost to create and maintain such a system, with such small chances that it would be used to solve a firearm crime, suggests to the F.O.P. that these are law enforcement dollars best spent elsewhere.”

2) This is not really enforceable, especially inside one’s own home; the onus lies with the owner to store the weapon with reasonable care. I do however believe training is a key component, gun owners should be trained how to properly use and handle a weapon.

3) I don’t think we should hold someone else accountable for the actions of another. Having said that, if there is some extreme case of gross negligence, then I would support it being investigated by the proper law enforcement authorities and action taken if deemed necessary.

4) I’m all for enforcing the current laws we have on the books. Instead of passing new useless gun control laws there should be better enforcement of existing ones.

Red Heeler
03-23-2005, 08:12 PM
R4L,
Thanks for the response. I was under the impression that ballistic fingerprinting was accurate. After you pointed it out, it is fairly easy to see why it isn't.

You are right about it being fairly difficult to enforce a lock-and-key law. However, it might just prevent some of the accidental shootings by children that we hear about. It might have also prevented a case like the shooting in Minnesota if the grandfather had had his revolver locked away. The real reason that I want to enact such a law is to hold irresponsible gun owners responsible if something does happen.

As for holding gun owners responsible for their guns falling into the wrong hands. If the gun owner kept their gun in a built in safe as I proposed, then someone robbing their house would not be able to steal their guns. It is more of an incentive to keep the guns safely stored.