Another psychotic gunmen, this time at a church...

[nevadamedic]

(CNN) -- Police in Moscow, Idaho, raided a church early Sunday where a gunman had holed up after shooting and killing two people.

The gunman killed a police officer and a civilian and wounded two others before apparently turning the gun on himself, authorities said.

Around 6 a.m., SWAT teams stormed the church and found the body of the shooter and another man in separate rooms on the main floor, Moscow Police Department Assistant Chief David Duke said.

The civilian male apparently killed by the shooter has not yet been identified. The shooter died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, Duke said.

Police found a semi-automatic or automatic rifle next to one of the bodies along with casings and bullets in the church and four empty magazines outside the church, Duke said.

Incident began Saturday night
Police believe the gunman, who appeared to be in his 20s or 30s, initially began shooting at the sheriff's dispatch center from a parking lot near the Moscow courthouse, shortly before 11:30 p.m. Saturday (2:30 a.m. ET).

Officer Lee Newbill and Deputy Brannon Jordan responded to the shooting and came under fire, Duke said.

In less than an hour, both men and a civilian bystander had been wounded.

All three were taken to Gritman Medical Center in Moscow.

Newbill, who joined the police department in 2001, died at the hospital hours later -- the first Moscow police officer to be killed in the line of duty, Duke said.

Jordan and the civilian were listed in serious condition, a statement from the hospital said.

Initial reports put the number of rounds fired at 30 to 40. Duke said he did not know how many shots were fired, but that it was a "large number."

The last gunshot was heard around 1 a.m.

Moscow, home to the University of Idaho, is a city of about 21,000 residents in the state's northwestern section.

Full story....... http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/20/police.shot/index.html

Whats going on, we cant go more then a month before someone go psycho and kills innocent people, what is society coming to.

[Bulldog]

That's awful!

My deepest sympathies go to the families of the victims.

We have similar problems over here in the UK. The last one I can recall involved a total madman running into a church full of people and attacking several members of the congregation with a Samurai sword. Nightmare!

It's a shame the guy took the 'easy' way out rather than properly paying for his crimes.

Bulldog.

[nevadamedic]

That's awful!

My deepest sympathies go to the families of the victims.

We have similar problems over here in the UK. The last one I can recall involved a total madman running into a church full of people and attacking several members of the congregation with a Samurai sword. Nightmare!

It's a shame the guy took the 'easy' way out rather than properly paying for his crimes.

Bulldog.

This is becoming way to common.

[5stringJeff]

This is becoming way to common.

Not enough people are armed.

[Bulldog]

I fail to see how arming people solves the issue. :)

We have a strict firearms ban in the UK and, as a consequence, our gun crime rate is very low indeed.

The police are the only ones trusted with firearms (quite rightly IMHO) and criminals with firearms are dealt with quickly and efficiently.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, just showing you a different worldly perspective.

Once everyone has the right to bear arms, you are bound to end up with a snowball effect with no hope of ever turning back.

You're unfortunately stuck with it buddy.

Bulldog.

[nevadamedic]

I think only Law Enforcement and Military Personel should be armed. That would drastically reduce the number of shootings weve had or will have.

[Bulldog]

Jeez!

We actually agree on something! LOL :D

Bulldog.

[5stringJeff]

I fail to see how arming people solves the issue. :)

We have a strict firearms ban in the UK and, as a consequence, our gun crime rate is very low indeed.

The police are the only ones trusted with firearms (quite rightly IMHO) and criminals with firearms are dealt with quickly and efficiently.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, just showing you a different worldly perspective.

Once everyone has the right to bear arms, you are bound to end up with a snowball effect with no hope of ever turning back.

You're unfortunately stuck with it buddy.

Bulldog.


I think only Law Enforcement and Military Personel should be armed. That would drastically reduce the number of shootings weve had or will have.

As to British crime rates, they are significantly worse than America's now that you've instituted gun control:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

As to who should be armed: criminals who want to be armed will always find a way to be armed, regardless of the current gun laws. So for Mr. and Mrs. Smith to have a chance against an armed criminal, what do they need? A gun. The police are too slow to respond, if you can call them in time, especially in rural areas. The only way you can be reasonably guaranteed of being able to defend yourself is to be armed with a gun yourself.

This has the effect of deterring crime. If, in a certain area, concealed carry permits were easily obtained, and a large number of people had access to firearms, would you, as a criminal, attempt a robbery, assault, or rape? Or would you try to find a place where people didn't have legal access to guns, or where using lethal force against an intruder got you jail time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3094113.stm)?

The right to self-defense is a basic one, and the right to bear firearms is the natural extension of that basic right of self-defense.

[Nienna]

Not enough people are armed.

In more ways than one. :(

[Bulldog]

Regarding UK gun crimes, it all depends whose figures you believe. :)

Don't forget that our figures tend to include disabled and replica firearms used merely for effect, harmless starting pistols, BB guns, pellet guns, etc.

The latest reliable figures (AFAIK) are given here...

http://www.gun-control-network.org/IN0507.htm

Notice how few of the weapons are either real or ever actually fired, yet these are still reported as 'firearm incidents'.

It seldom amounts to more than 1 or 2 a day on average for a population of around 65 million and is almost exclusively limited to certain inner-city areas which only account for a tiny percentage of the UK land area.

Off the top of my head, I think that fatalities related to firearms probably only amount to one every few weeks, although there has been a recent rise in race-related fatal shootings in London in the past few months. This is believed to be down to one person or possibly a very small group. Hopefully this 'glitch' will be dealt with very soon.

Living on the outskirts of one of the UK's major cities, I can assure you that I've never even heard a firearm let alone seen one.

Obviously, the situation on your side of the pond is different, so I don't feel as though I really have the right to comment further regarding the US situation.

I'll follow this thread with interest though. :)

Bulldog.

[Gaffer]

I live in the country. It takes about 20 minutes for a deputy to get here. That's 20 minutes too long in an emergency.

In 95% of the cases where guns are used against people all the police can do is pick up the pieces.

As for the article, they still haven't identified the shooter.

[nevadamedic]

As to British crime rates, they are significantly worse than America's now that you've instituted gun control:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

As to who should be armed: criminals who want to be armed will always find a way to be armed, regardless of the current gun laws. So for Mr. and Mrs. Smith to have a chance against an armed criminal, what do they need? A gun. The police are too slow to respond, if you can call them in time, especially in rural areas. The only way you can be reasonably guaranteed of being able to defend yourself is to be armed with a gun yourself.

This has the effect of deterring crime. If, in a certain area, concealed carry permits were easily obtained, and a large number of people had access to firearms, would you, as a criminal, attempt a robbery, assault, or rape? Or would you try to find a place where people didn't have legal access to guns, or where using lethal force against an intruder got you jail time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3094113.stm)?

The right to self-defense is a basic one, and the right to bear firearms is the natural extension of that basic right of self-defense.

Yea but it would be a lot harder for insane people like the VT shooter to obtain a gun that way.

[nevadamedic]

In more ways than one. :(

Huh?

[5stringJeff]

Yea but it would be a lot harder for insane people like the VT shooter to obtain a gun that way.

I think I mentioned at the time that VA's gun laws needed to be amended so that people with his mental health situation would be red-flagged and unable to purchase firearms from dealers. And, less restrictive gun laws would make it much easier for a student to obtain a gun so that, when the VT shooter started his rampage, he would have been taken out before 32 people died.