The Latest Rampage Shooting: New Mexico

[mundame]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A 15-year-old boy fatally shot two adults and three children at a home near Albuquerque, authorities said Sunday.
The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings Saturday night at the home in a rural area 10 miles southwest of downtown Albuquerque, Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson said.
The victims' identities haven't been released, and the boy's motive and connection to the five victims weren't immediately known. Williamson said investigators were trying to determine if the victims were related.
"We are trying to identify the victims," Williamson said.
Each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, he said.
Investigators also were trying to determine who owned several guns that were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/20/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexico-home-officials-say/#ixzz2IYZ8S1aT
************************************************** *****************************


I guess this kid was celebrating "Gun Appreciation Day."

The copycat effect implies that these will be more and more frequent and more and more will be killed each time, as the kids compete.
This one is a little unusual in that the shooter is still alive: usually they suicide.

[ConHog]

Too bad we can't figure out a way to get them to just suicide right at the jump.

[Kathianne]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A 15-year-old boy fatally shot two adults and three children at a home near Albuquerque, authorities said Sunday.
The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings Saturday night at the home in a rural area 10 miles southwest of downtown Albuquerque, Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson said.
The victims' identities haven't been released, and the boy's motive and connection to the five victims weren't immediately known. Williamson said investigators were trying to determine if the victims were related.
"We are trying to identify the victims," Williamson said.
Each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, he said.
Investigators also were trying to determine who owned several guns that were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/20/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexico-home-officials-say/#ixzz2IYZ8S1aT
************************************************** *****************************


I guess this kid was celebrating "Gun Appreciation Day."

The copycat effect implies that these will be more and more frequent and more and more will be killed each time, as the kids compete.
This one is a little unusual in that the shooter is still alive: usually they suicide.

No, it's not. This was a murder, for reasons unknown. There is nothing here to suggest a 'rampage.' It's unrelated to the CO type of shooting, which also was not suicidal; nor school shooting 'rampages', which are usually suicidal. Sounds more 'personal' as was the CA school shooting for 'bullying.' Not trying to kill at random, just his perceived persecutors.'

You're mixing apples and oranges, trying to use age.

[ConHog]

[/B]
No, it's not. This was a murder, for reasons unknown. There is nothing here to suggest a 'rampage.' It's unrelated to the CO type of shooting, which also was not suicidal; nor school shooting 'rampages', which are usually suicidal. Sounds more 'personal' as was the CA school shooting for 'bullying.' Not trying to kill at random, just his perceived persecutors.'

You're mixing apples and oranges, trying to use age.

This is a valid argument. I think that the media has all the sudden decided that any recent shooting is a "rampage shooting"

no , sometimes murder is just that murder. I mean suppose anyone who murders is rampaging a bit; but this a different dynamic altogether than just standing up in a movie theater and shooting complete strangers..

[hjmick]

[/B]
No, it's not. This was a murder, for reasons unknown. There is nothing here to suggest a 'rampage.' It's unrelated to the CO type of shooting, which also was not suicidal; nor school shooting 'rampages', which are usually suicidal. Sounds more 'personal' as was the CA school shooting for 'bullying.' Not trying to kill at random, just his perceived persecutors.'

You're mixing apples and oranges, trying to use age.

It seems that Muddame has ceased letting facts get in the way of ignorant hyperbole...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[/B]
No, it's not. This was a murder, for reasons unknown. There is nothing here to suggest a 'rampage.' It's unrelated to the CO type of shooting, which also was not suicidal; nor school shooting 'rampages', which are usually suicidal. Sounds more 'personal' as was the CA school shooting for 'bullying.' Not trying to kill at random, just his perceived persecutors.'

You're mixing apples and oranges, trying to use age.

What, now every shooting involving more than two people will be called a rampage shooting!??
Of course gang shootings will be exempted --mustn't discuss them , minority crime etc.
Home invasion by criminals which involved several deaths will be ignore too.
Criminals must be exempted. The template has to fit the agenda or be such it can be made to fit the anti-gun agenda.. -Tyr

[Kathianne]

This is a valid argument. I think that the media has all the sudden decided that any recent shooting is a "rampage shooting"

no , sometimes murder is just that murder. I mean suppose anyone who murders is rampaging a bit; but this a different dynamic altogether than just standing up in a movie theater and shooting complete strangers..


I grew up in a 'wealthy' western suburb of Chicago. My parents were comfortable, but certainly not wealthy and not prone to over indulging their children. As my mom used to say, "You have everything you need and much of what you want. Stop whining and be grateful." We were for the most part.

Some of our schoolmates? Not so much. My doctor, from the time I was 3 until middle school was like a movie star. She was beautiful on the outside and inside. She and my mom belonged to some of the same organizations, so she paid extra attention to my brother and myself. My mom knew she had some issues with her husband and was very concerned about her older son. I didn't know about this, not until later.

She died of cancer when I was in 8th grade. Her husband was a well known attorney in our county, they were 'wealthy' without a doubt. Two sons, one I was in school with, the other a few years older. The one my age and I hung with the same crowd. We were 'friends' of a sort, not close, he wasn't easy to get close to, though he was very smart and popular.

My doctor's practice was taken over by another female, also very nice, but not beautiful. My mom liked her enough that we stayed at the same place. At the end of freshman year, she married my 'other doctor's' widow. In our junior year of high school, the older son got into an altercation with his father, stabbed him with a knife in the house. The father stumbled out of the house, with son following. He further attacked the father with said knife on the front lawn, around 3:40, when local grammar school students were walking home. He kept stabbing him after he was dead. The police had to make him stop. Around 15 little kids were watching when the police arrived.

Traumatized? Undoubtedly. Seems the father beat both of my doctors and knocked the boys around too. The oldest son was eventually placed in mental hospital, released at 22. Seems there was lots of documentation for the acting out. I don't know to this day all the legalities, but he's practicing law. Something went down here. Perhaps most telling, the second wife allowed the son to return to the home after release, until he could finish education.

There's murder and there are other crimes. School shootings being one. Not all crimes committed by young males without 'criminal records' are suicidal.

None of this, including the above changes the fact that killing really is inexcusable. That the case cited involved children indeed illustrates just that. Mixing up the 'causes' though, throwing them all into the same boat, calling them 'copy cats' serves no purpose.

[ConHog]

I grew up in a 'wealthy' western suburb of Chicago. My parents were comfortable, but certainly not wealthy and not prone to over indulging their children. As my mom used to say, "You have everything you need and much of what you want. Stop whining and be grateful." We were for the most part.

Some of our schoolmates? Not so much. My doctor, from the time I was 3 until middle school was like a movie star. She was beautiful on the outside and inside. She and my mom belonged to some of the same organizations, so she paid extra attention to my brother and myself. My mom knew she had some issues with her husband and was very concerned about her older son. I didn't know about this, not until later.

She died of cancer when I was in 8th grade. Her husband was a well known attorney in our county, they were 'wealthy' without a doubt. Two sons, one I was in school with, the other a few years older. The one my age and I hung with the same crowd. We were 'friends' of a sort, not close, he wasn't easy to get close to, though he was very smart and popular.

My doctor's practice was taken over by another female, also very nice, but not beautiful. My mom liked her enough that we stayed at the same place. At the end of freshman year, she married my 'other doctor's' widow. In our junior year of high school, the older son got into an altercation with his father, stabbed him with a knife in the house. The father stumbled out of the house, with son following. He further attacked the father with said knife on the front lawn, around 3:40, when local grammar school students were walking home. He kept stabbing him after he was dead. The police had to make him stop. Around 15 little kids were watching when the police arrived.

Traumatized? Undoubtedly. Seems the father beat both of my doctors and knocked the boys around too. The oldest son was eventually placed in mental hospital, released at 22. Seems there was lots of documentation for the acting out. I don't know to this day all the legalities, but he's practicing law. Something went down here. Perhaps most telling, the second wife allowed the son to return to the home after release, until he could finish education.

There's murder and there are other crimes. School shootings being one. Not all crimes committed by young males without 'criminal records' are suicidal.

None of this, including the above changes the fact that killing really is inexcusable. That the case cited involved children indeed illustrates just that. Mixing up the 'causes' though, throwing them all into the same boat, calling them 'copy cats' serves no purpose.

I agree, all lumping them all together does is pollute the data we have to use to try to determine a root cause. In the story you told, the root cause seems pretty obvious. But what could cause someone just to stand up in a movie theater and kill innocent strangers?

I hate that guy, I haven't been to a movie since. My wife who normally trusts me implicitly with guarding her safety refuses to go to a movie theater. I rather enjoyed the movie theater.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I agree, all lumping them all together does is pollute the data we have to use to try to determine a root cause. In the story you told, the root cause seems pretty obvious. But what could cause someone just to stand up in a movie theater and kill innocent strangers?

I hate that guy, I haven't been to a movie since. My wife who normally trusts me implicitly with guarding her safety refuses to go to a movie theater. I rather enjoyed the movie theater.

I have went to several movies since then. Letting fear overtake common sense is silly. People are more likely to get killed by lightning than to be shot by a crazed gunman in a movie theater. Conquer your fears , live a better life..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

I agree, all lumping them all together does is pollute the data we have to use to try to determine a root cause. In the story you told, the root cause seems pretty obvious. But what could cause someone just to stand up in a movie theater and kill innocent strangers?

I hate that guy, I haven't been to a movie since. My wife who normally trusts me implicitly with guarding her safety refuses to go to a movie theater. I rather enjoyed the movie theater.

Logic. That was the only theater within miles that posted 'Gun free zone.' Perhaps coincidental it was targeted, doubt we'll ever get an answer on that.

How many theater shootings have their been? Of the total number of theater goers in US in 2012, how many were shot? How many killed? What were those percentages of total?

Now ask, how many were killed in their own homes by accidents? Auto accidents? Drive by shootings?

I'd take my chances at a school or theater, in spite of the hype.

[ConHog]

Logic. That was the only theater within miles that posted 'Gun free zone.' Perhaps coincidental it was targeted, doubt we'll ever get an answer on that.

How many theater shootings have their been? Of the total number of theater goers in US in 2012, how many were shot? How many killed? What were those percentages of total?

Now ask, how many were killed in their own homes by accidents? Auto accidents? Drive by shootings?

I'd take my chances at a school or theater, in spite of the hype.

well, to be fair to my wife, she was until last Thursday morning, pregnant with our second child.

[aboutime]

[/B]
No, it's not. This was a murder, for reasons unknown. There is nothing here to suggest a 'rampage.' It's unrelated to the CO type of shooting, which also was not suicidal; nor school shooting 'rampages', which are usually suicidal. Sounds more 'personal' as was the CA school shooting for 'bullying.' Not trying to kill at random, just his perceived persecutors.'

You're mixing apples and oranges, trying to use age.


Kathianne. We all know. Members like mundame, conhog, and the anti-gun crowd MUST, and NEED to pronounce EVERY mention of a gun, shooting, or murder as a "RAMPAGE".
It's a wonder they haven't accused the NRA for being responsible for this shooting.

And. Here is a reminder for all of you ANTI-EVERYTHING YOU CAN FIND people.

The population of the United States TODAY...is somewhere OVER 311 Million people.

If you or your massive hate networks have some MAGICAL WAY to solve, and Oversee the actions of ALL 311 MILLION people on a 24/7 basis.

NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO TELL US HOW YOU WOULD DO IT!

Otherwise. Go back to barking at the MOON.

[Kathianne]

Slowly the details emerge:

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Officials-NM-teen-gunman-kills-5-inside-home-4209429.php


Fire chief: Chaplain is 1 of 5 NM shooting victims <!-- e src/business/templates/hearst/article/headline_r1.tpl --> By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN, Associated Press | January 20, 2013 | Updated: January 20, 2013 7:00pm <!-- e src/business/templates/hearst/article/types/standard_title_r1.tpl -->ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A 15-year-old boy remained in custody Sunday night as detectives tried to piece together what led to the shooting of five people, including three young children, who were found dead in a New Mexico home.


The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings, which happened Saturday night at the home in a rural area southwest of downtown Albuquerque, said Lt. Sid Covington (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fcrime&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Sid+Covington%22), a Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman.


Detectives did not immediately release the victims' names, but word of the shootings traveled quickly through the law enforcement community, and officials began offering their condolences for Greg Griego, a spiritual leader known for his work with firefighters and the 13 years he spent as a volunteer chaplain at the county jail.


"Chaplin Griego (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fcrime&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Chaplin+Griego%22) was a dedicated professional that passionately served his fellow man and the firefighters of this community," Fire Chief James Breen (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fcrime&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22James+Breen%22) said in a statement. "His calming spirit and gentle nature will be greatly missed."

ail Chief Ramon Rustin (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fcrime&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Ramon+Rustin%22) said Griego was instrumental in the creation of the Metropolitan Detention Center (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fcrime&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Metropolitan+Detention+Center%22)'s chaplain program and worked to get inmates integrated back into the community.


Griego also was a former member of the pastoral staff at Calvary, a Christian church (http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fcrime&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Christian+church%22) in Albuquerque. As part of his work there, he oversaw the Straight Street program for jail inmates.

[DragonStryk72]

Each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, he said.
Investigators also were trying to determine who owned several guns that were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle.
************************************************** *****************************


I guess this kid was celebrating "Gun Appreciation Day."

The copycat effect implies that these will be more and more frequent and more and more will be killed each time, as the kids compete.
This one is a little unusual in that the shooter is still alive: usually they suicide.

All guns are military style weapons, so that's just a useless point. Second, since semi-automatic weapons were used, it could have been done just as easily with a cop issue Beretta or any other small arms.

And please stop making people weaker than inanimate objects. At no point, again, do we address the obvious mental problems involved. Oh no, let's just talk more about the guns.

[ConHog]

Kathianne. We all know. Members like mundame, conhog, and the anti-gun crowd MUST, and NEED to pronounce EVERY mention of a gun, shooting, or murder as a "RAMPAGE".
It's a wonder they haven't accused the NRA for being responsible for this shooting.

And. Here is a reminder for all of you ANTI-EVERYTHING YOU CAN FIND people.

The population of the United States TODAY...is somewhere OVER 311 Million people.

If you or your massive hate networks have some MAGICAL WAY to solve, and Oversee the actions of ALL 311 MILLION people on a 24/7 basis.

NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO TELL US HOW YOU WOULD DO IT!

Otherwise. Go back to barking at the MOON.

Psst , hey stupid, at NO time did I label the story in the OP a "rampage shooting"

[mundame]

Well, I did: rampage shooting is a common term for it. Massacre and mass murder also work.

This kid surely qualifies: he did shoot five people! Actually, they have a definition now. It's not a rampage shooting unless there are at least two killed and then it should optimally be in a school or public place with the potential for more. I think that's too few dead people: we need to think bigger, at LEAST three dead or they don't get their names in the record books.

However, two adults and three children shot up, possibly with an AR-15 as usual, the story implies? Yeah, that probably counts.

Classicly, it should be in a public place like a mall or McDonalds, but still, the family is just as dead as if they'd been watching Batman.

What? You all want to say there's nothing wrong with this kid, it's all perfectly normal for a 15-year-old in New Mexico to shoot two adults and three children, EACH with "more than one shot"? Shades of Sandy Hook --- I wonder just how many shots he put in each kid's head. You know he read the stories about all the kid's heads being chewed into hamburger, and he's competing.

[mundame]

And please stop making people weaker than inanimate objects. At no point, again, do we address the obvious mental problems involved. Oh no, let's just talk more about the guns.

He shot them all on "Gun Appreciation Day." Coincidence?

Probably not.

[ConHog]

Well, I did: rampage shooting is a common term for it. Massacre and mass murder also work.

This kid surely qualifies: he did shoot five people! Actually, they have a definition now. It's not a rampage shooting unless there are at least two killed and then it should optimally be in a school or public place with the potential for more. I think that's too few dead people: we need to think bigger, at LEAST three dead or they don't get their names in the record books.

However, two adults and three children shot up, possibly with an AR-15 as usual, the story implies? Yeah, that probably counts.

Classicly, it should be in a public place like a mall or McDonalds, but still, the family is just as dead as if they'd been watching Batman.

What? You all want to say there's nothing wrong with this kid, it's all perfectly normal for a 15-year-old in New Mexico to shoot two adults and three children, EACH with "more than one shot"? Shades of Sandy Hook --- I wonder just how many shots he put in each kid's head. You know he read the stories about all the kid's heads being chewed into hamburger, and he's competing.

I disagree with you, sort of. I mean any killing is done by someone who has rampaged. BUT when we're talking about a "rampage killing" generally we mean one where the victims were just chosen seemingly at random with no thought to motive specific to those victims. I think we can figure a reason why he killed his family


He shot them all on "Gun Appreciation Day." Coincidence?

Probably not.


leave that kinda hyperbole for the brain dead. Of course it was a coincidence. He wasn't making a statement about guns by choosing the date.

[Kathianne]

I've no clue to what happened here. Must say wouldn't be surprised if there are charges of abuse regarding someone that was targeted. Like so may others, that doesn't justify the slayings. We'll find out soon enough.

[mundame]

I disagree with you, sort of. I mean any killing is done by someone who has rampaged. BUT when we're talking about a "rampage killing" generally we mean one where the victims were just chosen seemingly at random with no thought to motive specific to those victims. I think we can figure a reason why he killed his family

No, rampage doesn't mean an Agatha Christie murder! Or even the series of murders she inevitably fetches in. It means -- well, you know what it means, somebody goes berserk and just starts shooting at everyone around.

It's definitely not a question of random murders: many of the school shooters actually carried hit lists with them! They didn't usually get too many of those, but they made a good-faith effort and have frequently killed one or more on their lists. Still, I agree that I would be more comfortable that this is a classic rampage killing if he had gone to the mall or to school for it. It is possible this is one of the "I hate my family and I'm a schizo" killings, or it could simply be a drug killing: it IS near the border, after all. But they caught him very soon for that. I'm not sure that killing one's whole family, little kids and all, shouldn't count as a rampage mass murder ------ but I guess we aren't as afraid of those as we are of the more random shootings where anyone, like us, could die. So we consider it normal.....



leave that kinda hyperbole for the brain dead. Of course it was a coincidence. He wasn't making a statement about guns by choosing the date.

Oh, I bet he did select the date to get more publicity. These kids are in a competition for notoriety, I read. They all read about mass murderers and compete with the past ones' records. Maybe it was a coincidence, but .......personally, I bet it wasn't. This was one of those households with lots of guns, after all. I figured there would be a mass shooting on Gun Appreciation Day. Inevitable someone would parlay that into self-publicity.

[mundame]

Speaking of good dates to get lots of publicity for rampage shootings, how about Monday? MLK Day AND the Inauguration......

Very tempting for certain types of crazies. They'd use an AR-15 assault rifle, of course. That's what they're for, assaulting. Kids are so literal: they don't realize these type of guns are just for pretend.

[Kathianne]

Speaking of good dates to get lots of publicity for rampage shootings, how about Monday? MLK Day AND the Inauguration......

Very tempting for certain types of crazies. They'd use an AR-15 assault rifle, of course. That's what they're for, assaulting. Kids are so literal: they don't realize these type of guns are just for pretend.

Except there's no school. You revel in this, no?

[logroller]

Well, I did: rampage shooting is a common term for it. Massacre and mass murder also work.

This kid surely qualifies: he did shoot five people! Actually, they have a definition now. It's not a rampage shooting unless there are at least two killed and then it should optimally be in a school or public place with the potential for more. I think that's too few dead people: we need to think bigger, at LEAST three dead or they don't get their names in the record books.

However, two adults and three children shot up, possibly with an AR-15 as usual, the story implies? Yeah, that probably counts.

Classicly, it should be in a public place like a mall or McDonalds, but still, the family is just as dead as if they'd been watching Batman.

What? You all want to say there's nothing wrong with this kid, it's all perfectly normal for a 15-year-old in New Mexico to shoot two adults and three children, EACH with "more than one shot"? Shades of Sandy Hook --- I wonder just how many shots he put in each kid's head. You know he read the stories about all the kid's heads being chewed into hamburger, and he's competing.
A rampage shooting refers to the shooter's state of mind; a state of violent anger or agitation; have you evidence to this? I see none presented in the OP. But just to infer that any shooter is angry and agitated, taking up a weapon merely out of convenience to suit your agenda gives ample inference to your bias. Maybe he was angry and snapped; maybe he's a sociopath-- I don't know which is the case. But skipping over unknown facts and jumping to conclusions points straightaway to a solution in search of a problem. Not only is that not how problems are solved, more often its how they are created.

[DragonStryk72]

He shot them all on "Gun Appreciation Day." Coincidence?

Probably not.

And you still can't talk about the obvious mental issues, only the guns. Coincidence?

Basically guns are the new "darned rock n roll music". We can safely blame them without having to deal with the failings of humans. Unfortunately, by continuing to take the comfortable excuse, we will never address the root cause, and thus, these things will happen again.

[red states rule]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A 15-year-old boy fatally shot two adults and three children at a home near Albuquerque, authorities said Sunday.
The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings Saturday night at the home in a rural area 10 miles southwest of downtown Albuquerque, Bernalillo County sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson said.
The victims' identities haven't been released, and the boy's motive and connection to the five victims weren't immediately known. Williamson said investigators were trying to determine if the victims were related.
"We are trying to identify the victims," Williamson said.
Each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, he said.
Investigators also were trying to determine who owned several guns that were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/20/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexico-home-officials-say/#ixzz2IYZ8S1aT
************************************************** *****************************


I guess this kid was celebrating "Gun Appreciation Day."

The copycat effect implies that these will be more and more frequent and more and more will be killed each time, as the kids compete.
This one is a little unusual in that the shooter is still alive: usually they suicide.

http://622494930271648021.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/6/12662369/649937484.jpg

[mundame]

A rampage shooting refers to the shooter's state of mind; a state of violent anger or agitation; have you evidence to this? I see none presented in the OP. But just to infer that any shooter is angry and agitated, taking up a weapon merely out of convenience to suit your agenda gives ample inference to your bias. Maybe he was angry and snapped; maybe he's a sociopath-- I don't know which is the case. But skipping over unknown facts and jumping to conclusions points straightaway to a solution in search of a problem. Not only is that not how problems are solved, more often its how they are created.


Soooooo......you think this 15-year-old kid probably shot two adults and three children perfectly calmly? He had a little list and he calmly checked them off? I don't know --- Adam Lanza shot his mother that way while she slept so he could follow the rest of his program, but what he did is still called rampage killing.

It's just the new term for this sort of popular recreational massacre; we need a word since there are more and more of them now, and more and more and more to come.

Call it mass murder if you are more comfortable with that term. Or massacre is good.

I see you all want to talk this kind of mass murder around to being fine and all right so you can keep your assault rifles and fantasize being big-shot old guys in the Revolution, but most people see the constantly increasing numbers of mass murders as a problem for the society.

[red states rule]

http://dgilber2.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gm071209g-demstarget.jpg
Soooooo......you think this 15-year-old kid probably shot two adults and three children perfectly calmly? He had a little list and he calmly checked them off? I don't know --- Adam Lanza shot his mother that way while she slept so he could follow the rest of his program, but what he did is still called rampage killing.

It's just the new term for this sort of popular recreational massacre; we need a word since there are more and more of them now, and more and more and more to come.

Call it mass murder if you are more comfortable with that term. Or massacre is good.

I see you all want to talk this kind of mass murder around to being fine and all right so you can keep your assault rifles and fantasize being big-shot old guys in the Revolution, but most people see the constantly increasing numbers of mass murders as a problem for the society.

[mundame]

And you still can't talk about the obvious mental issues, only the guns. Coincidence?

Basically guns are the new "darned rock n roll music". We can safely blame them without having to deal with the failings of humans. Unfortunately, by continuing to take the comfortable excuse, we will never address the root cause, and thus, these things will happen again.


So you are saying the fact that they pretty much all use assault rifles is irrelevant.

You all have bought a lot of assault rifles and dozens and dozens of psycho teens steal them and use them for their intended purpose....that doesn't seem irrelevant to me. Or to most of the country.

You refer above to "the root cause" --- what do you think is the root cause? and how could the society address it so that mass murders won't happen again?

[red states rule]

http://www.secondamendmentsupporters.com/images/info/pictures/anti-gun-test_01.jpg

[mundame]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A 15-year-old boy remained in custody as detectives tried to piece together what led to the shooting of his parents and three of their children who were found dead in a New Mexico home.
The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings, which happened Saturday night at the home in a rural area southwest of downtown Albuquerque, said Lt. Sid Covington, a sheriff's spokesman, on Sunday.

Authorities identified the victims late Sunday as Greg Griego, 51, his wife Sara Griego, 40, and three of their children: a 9-year-old boy, Zephania Griego, and daughters Jael Griego, 5, and Angelina Griego, 2. The suspect was identified as Nehemiah Griego.

Word of the shootings traveled quickly through the law enforcement community, and officials began offering their condolences for Greg Griego, a spiritual leader known for his work with firefighters and the 13 years he spent as a volunteer chaplain at the county jail.

Authorities said each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, and several guns were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle. Investigators were trying to determine who owned the guns.

Neighbors said they saw the first police cars and ambulances arrive at the home Saturday night. The road was blocked and word of the shootings began to make its way through the neighborhood.
Peter Gomez, a 54-year-old carpenter who lives about 200 yards from the home, said he had seen the family -- a husband and wife and their four children -- pass by many times but didn't know them personally.
"It's a horrible thing," Gomez said. "You see all this stuff that happens all over the country, the shootings in the schools and theaters, and then it happens right here. It's sad."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/21/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexico-home-officials-say/#ixzz2IchKjf9c
************************************************** *******************

Okay, this is one of those cases where the kid killed his whole family --- "You won't let me use my Game Boy so I'll get Dad's assault rifle and kill you all!!!!"

The neighbor Gomez certainly thinks this is a rampage killing like all the rest, what about you all? Since he just killed his family, does that make it different, okay, not really a problem?

[red states rule]

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A 15-year-old boy remained in custody as detectives tried to piece together what led to the shooting of his parents and three of their children who were found dead in a New Mexico home.
The teenager was arrested on murder and other charges in connection with the shootings, which happened Saturday night at the home in a rural area southwest of downtown Albuquerque, said Lt. Sid Covington, a sheriff's spokesman, on Sunday.

Authorities identified the victims late Sunday as Greg Griego, 51, his wife Sara Griego, 40, and three of their children: a 9-year-old boy, Zephania Griego, and daughters Jael Griego, 5, and Angelina Griego, 2. The suspect was identified as Nehemiah Griego.

Word of the shootings traveled quickly through the law enforcement community, and officials began offering their condolences for Greg Griego, a spiritual leader known for his work with firefighters and the 13 years he spent as a volunteer chaplain at the county jail.

Authorities said each victim suffered more than one gunshot wound, and several guns were found at the home, one of which was a semi-automatic military-style rifle. Investigators were trying to determine who owned the guns.

Neighbors said they saw the first police cars and ambulances arrive at the home Saturday night. The road was blocked and word of the shootings began to make its way through the neighborhood.
Peter Gomez, a 54-year-old carpenter who lives about 200 yards from the home, said he had seen the family -- a husband and wife and their four children -- pass by many times but didn't know them personally.
"It's a horrible thing," Gomez said. "You see all this stuff that happens all over the country, the shootings in the schools and theaters, and then it happens right here. It's sad."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/21/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexico-home-officials-say/#ixzz2IchKjf9c
************************************************** *******************

Okay, this is one of those cases where the kid killed his whole family --- "You won't let me use my Game Boy so I'll get Dad's assault rifle and kill you all!!!!"

The neighbor Gomez certainly thinks this is a rampage killing like all the rest, what about you all? Since he just killed his family, does that make it different, okay, not really a problem?

and like Gabby you pounce and used the murdered people as a prop to advance your anti gun agenda. Please Mundame, please tell us what law if passed would have stopped the murders? Or like Gabby will you ignore the question; attack me for asking the question; or simply go on oblivious to the lack of logic your dream of a gun free world has?

[logroller]

Soooooo......you think this 15-year-old kid probably shot two adults and three children perfectly calmly? He had a little list and he calmly checked them off? I don't know ---

I don't know either, but I'm not saying it was a rampage killing.

Adam Lanza shot his mother that way while she slept so he could follow the rest of his program, but what he did is still called rampage killing.
By whom-- those with an agenda perhaps-- those with a solution looking for a problem?



It's just the new term for this sort of popular recreational massacre; we need a word since there are more and more of them now, and more and more and more to come.
and you gain comfort from misattributed nomenclature? Look, I'm willing to discuss the merits of gun control, but we'll need to decide what words mean...I submit english language dictionaries should be used, not red herrings.


Call it mass murder if you are more comfortable with that term. Or massacre is good.

I'm more comfortable using the english language to convey actual meaning. Then we can go about determining the problem and addressing it. Understand the how and the why are different. How somebody commits these crimes is not going to change why they do. Do you want to address the cause or the symptom?


I see you all want to talk this kind of mass murder around to being fine and all right so you can keep your assault rifles and fantasize being big-shot old guys in the Revolution,
Where did you see that from me? I simply want to have a conversation which discusses facts and realities, rather than propaganda and bias.


but most people see the constantly increasing numbers of mass murders as a problem for the society.
I just don't see mass murder as the predominant issue of violence in America. Are they a problem, or a symptom of a problem? Why do mass murders get more attention than criminal enterprises riding on government prohibition of things like drugs? Our government injected the very weapons now brought to the forefront of gun control into these criminal enterprises. You color me a big-shot revolutionary, but you give government a free pass when they give weapons to known criminals. Oh, but now we need reasonable restrictions and more extensive background checks. What a racket-- has all the logic of pouring gas in your walls to show you why you need a fire suppression system...for the kids, of course.

Why the infatuation with mass murder, a paltry percent of total gun violence? Have you looked at the study I presented which showed the extremely low percentage of crimes which employ high-cap magazines and black scary guns. Yet these items get a mention every time in media. Is that an NRA promoted issue-- technologic methods for mass murder? Far from it!!! The anti-gun agenda is far more culpable for the promotion of violence though the constant over-emphasizing and notoriety provided to desperate individuals. Seriously, you're part of the problem.

[jimnyc]

So you are saying the fact that they pretty much all use assault rifles is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? No. Is it exaggerated? Hell yes.

Less than 3% of all murders are from a rifle. About 300 or so last year. 1200 people were killed by fists or feet. 1800 by knives.

300 is still too many of course, but the amount of deaths per year due to an AR15 AND every other rifle, is fairly small in comparison to other methods, and miniscule when compared to a plain old pistol.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm sorry, but the NM shooting is no longer the latest, as there was a driveby shooting in New Orleans today that killed five.....

[ConHog]

Irrelevant? No. Is it exaggerated? Hell yes.

Less than 3% of all murders are from a rifle. About 300 or so last year. 1200 people were killed by fists or feet. 1800 by knives.

300 is still too many of course, but the amount of deaths per year due to an AR15 AND every other rifle, is fairly small in comparison to other methods, and miniscule when compared to a plain old pistol.

Even at that she is WRONG in using the term assault rifle.

An assault rifle as defined by the US Army and Marines I might add is any weapon that meets the following



It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_%28firearm%29));
It must be capable of selective fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire); including automatic firing
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol) but less than a standard rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) or battle rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle);
Its ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition) must be supplied from a detachable magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29) rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)


anything else is classified differently.

Now since the North Hollywood Bank Robbery, I simply cant' find any examples of an assault rifle being used to commit a crime, and certainly in that incident any murders committed were incidental to primary crime.

[jimnyc]

Even at that she is WRONG in using the term assault rifle.

An assault rifle as defined by the US Army and Marines I might add is any weapon that meets the following



It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_%28firearm%29));
It must be capable of selective fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire); including automatic firing
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol) but less than a standard rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) or battle rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle);
Its ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition) must be supplied from a detachable magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29) rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)


anything else is classified differently.

Now since the North Hollywood Bank Robbery, I simply cant' find any examples of an assault rifle being used to commit a crime, and certainly in that incident any murders committed were incidental to primary crime.

Since the media labels the guns as such, some think their word is gospel. I like this better - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles <---- REAL assault rifles, not based on scariness.

The North Hollywood robbery is why the police around the nation now carry the rifles they do, specifically an M14 here in my city.

[ConHog]

Since the media labels the guns as such, some think their word is gospel. I like this better - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles <---- REAL assault rifles, not based on scariness.

The North Hollywood robbery is why the police around the nation now carry the rifles they do, specifically an M14 here in my city.

Exactly so, Los Angelas SWAT is universally acknowledged as the top police SWAT in the world and that incident absolutely sparked that.

Which is why I laugh when some suggest police shouldn't have access to such weapons .

[DragonStryk72]

So you are saying the fact that they pretty much all use assault rifles is irrelevant.

You all have bought a lot of assault rifles and dozens and dozens of psycho teens steal them and use them for their intended purpose....that doesn't seem irrelevant to me. Or to most of the country.

You refer above to "the root cause" --- what do you think is the root cause? and how could the society address it so that mass murders won't happen again?

You mean the fact that they all pretty much used semiautomatic weapons? Yes, it is useless, because all weapons are assault weapons. Its why we call them weapons. Its as useless as adding on the term rampage killing.

You refuse to address the mental aspects of these killings. In the case of sandy hook, the killer was clearly brought up with severe paranoia, a paranoia that saw all other as potential enemies. For each though, there will be a different root cause to their insanity.

Instead of blaming the tools, maybe, just maybe we should focus on the people who believe that killing multiple people is a good thing. Somehow, I can't help but think that they are more responsible than the entirely inanimate object they carry.

[ConHog]

You mean the fact that they all pretty much used semiautomatic weapons? Yes, it is useless, because all weapons are assault weapons. Its why we call them weapons. Its as useless as adding on the term rampage killing.

You refuse to address the mental aspects of these killings. In the case of sandy hook, the killer was clearly brought up with severe paranoia, a paranoia that saw all other as potential enemies. For each though, there will be a different root cause to their insanity.

Instead of blaming the tools, maybe, just maybe we should focus on the people who believe that killing multiple people is a good thing. Somehow, I can't help but think that they are more responsible than the entirely inanimate object they carry.

Hey, you wanna hear something crazy? I have an M16A1 and an Uzi in my gun safe. In all the years I've owned them neither of them has ever taken it upon itself to go out and kill anyone.

Pretty neat eh?

[bingster]

It seems that Muddame has ceased letting facts get in the way of ignorant hyperbole...

Your post sux, but I like your quotes.

[DragonStryk72]

Hey, you wanna hear something crazy? I have an M16A1 and an Uzi in my gun safe. In all the years I've owned them neither of them has ever taken it upon itself to go out and kill anyone.

Pretty neat eh?

Lol, clearly that's an aberration. /sarcasm

[Kathianne]

Lol, clearly that's an aberration. /sarcasm

I'm buying a Hello Kitty bubble gun. If I meet up with CH I'm going to bubble his brains out! Really. Watching for FBI even now. Oh the 'blowing brains out' got from CH who thought he might have heard something like that, went on to make it a fact for over 15 posts over 3 threads, when called out, said, Umm, I thought I heard... I can't find anything like that, so I'll stop now.'

[hjmick]

Your post sux, but I like your quotes.

Oooo... Well I better work harder to impress the kid who can't afford a "c" and a "k..." :2up:

I forgot the "s..."

[ConHog]

I'm buying a Hello Kitty bubble gun. If I meet up with CH I'm going to bubble his brains out! Really. Watching for FBI even now. Oh the 'blowing brains out' got from CH who thought he might have heard something like that, went on to make it a fact for over 15 posts over 3 threads, when called out, said, Umm, I thought I heard... I can't find anything like that, so I'll stop now.'

You sure seem to have a huge problem with someone admitting to an error. I mean I can understand it is confusing to you since it's not common on here, but fuck sakes get over it.

[mundame]

You color me a big-shot revolutionary...


Naaaaah, I don't think you are a big-shot revolutionary or ever likely to be one, however many assault rifles you've got loaded and propped up near the door. I think there is a high fantasy component connected with assault rifles -- indeed, fantasy is ALL most of them are used for. Like the dried Survival Food bins and such many people who own assault rifles go in for, hoping to see The Revolution.

Unluckily, the kids or adult crazies steal them from the fantasizers and actually do use them for assaulting, more and more and more frequently.

Saying that's a problem doesn't make it not a problem; of course it's a problem. You gun guys have tied yourselves into a corner where you have to defend all these rampage murderers. I wouldn't care to have that job......

[mundame]

I'm sorry, but the NM shooting is no longer the latest, as there was a driveby shooting in New Orleans today that killed five.....


Black drug crime, presumably. That's "normal." Huge numbers of ghetto shootings everywhere.

We have accepted that. What we don't want to accept is the schizophrenic white teenager killing out so many school students that it endangers the concept of public education in this country, as more and more parents bail out rather than face these crime-ridden, dangerous, bully-haven schools where more and more teens decide to suicide by taking out MORE kids than the last guy did, by stealing several guns to do it with from gun-nut Dad.

Darn, I can remember when people only had one gun, a WWII automatic in the top drawer of the bureau, or on a farm, a shotgun and a 22 rifle. When did all this gun-nut stuff start, and why?

[CSM]

Black drug crime, presumably. That's "normal." Huge numbers of ghetto shootings everywhere.

We have accepted that. What we don't want to accept is the schizophrenic white teenager killing out so many school students that it endangers the concept of public education in this country, as more and more parents bail out rather than face these crime-ridden, dangerous, bully-haven schools where more and more teens decide to suicide by taking out MORE kids than the last guy did, by stealing several guns to do it with from gun-nut Dad.

Darn, I can remember when people only had one gun, a WWII automatic in the top drawer of the bureau, or on a farm, a shotgun and a 22 rifle. When did all this gun-nut stuff start, and why?

Well, it seems you missed a few stereotypes in this post; where is mention of dumb blondes, women drivers, or the rednecks kidnapped by aliens?

Seriously, you really believe that black drug crime and ghetto shootings are "acceptable"??? Your concept of public education is that public schools are all "crime-ridden, dangerous, bully-haven schools" and that teens get guns by stealing from "gun nut Dads"??? Really???

In answer to your question at the end of your post, the "gun nut stuff" started when the media and uninformed, intellectually lazy folks decided that anyone who owns a gun is the problem and a danger to society. It started when those same folks and the media decided to characterize (if not demonize) law abiding citizens who own guns as people who do not care about human life, children, the elderly or whatever the cause du jour happens to be at the moment. It started when elected government officials asserted that military veterans are a more fearsome danger to this country than terrorists extremists from other countries. It started when our political system turned to "us against them" and "our side over your side". That's when it all started. It will continue as long as the citizens of this country think that way.

I have been watching this thread for some time now. It is clear that there are those who think banning firearms will resolve the issue. To them, I would point out that murder in all its various forms is illegal by a plethora of local, state and federal laws. Those laws have not stopped murder; they have not even made murder a rare occurence. The same holds true for rape, assault, imbezzlement, fraud and drunk driving. The point I am making here is that laws do not prevent crime, they merely provide a mechanism for punishing those who commit a crime.

Until this country changes its attitude and approach, nothing will be resolved. Until we, as a nation, decide that respect for others and their point of view (with a reasonable consideration, collaboration and compromise) can and will provide viable solutions to this country's problems, we are fated to slowly degenerate into tyranny (if not anarchy). I am skeptical that this society will ever be capable of doing that.

[mundame]

Well, it seems you missed a few stereotypes in this post; where is mention of dumb blondes, women drivers, or the rednecks kidnapped by aliens?

As a blonde female living on a farm who often has a red neck, I skipped those stereotypes.




Seriously, you really believe that black drug crime and ghetto shootings are "acceptable"??? Your concept of public education is that public schools are all "crime-ridden, dangerous, bully-haven schools" and that teens get guns by stealing from "gun nut Dads"??? Really???

Sure. Nobody cares about black-on-black crime, including the blacks who do it. Duh. You all know that. The problem is when whites start massacring each other. That's about us and our children, so we do care.

And yes, public schools are dangerous, bully-ridden crime havens and everyone knows it, which is why people are frantic for alternatives now.

And obviously the killer teens are getting their guns from gun-nut dads -- gun-nut mom in the case of Adam Lanza, or getting some just-over-18 fool to buy them at a gun show like the Columbine killers, or stealing them from some gun-nut family they know: we KNOW they are doing this. It's in the news accounts, including this New Mexico thing.

That is precisely the problem and why many want the assault rifles banned: teens are stealing them more and more often for many, many mass murders. Sorry, but they just are.


In answer to your question at the end of your post, the "gun nut stuff" started when the media and uninformed, intellectually lazy folks decided that anyone who owns a gun is the problem and a danger to society. It started when those same folks and the media decided to characterize (if not demonize) law abiding citizens who own guns as people who do not care about human life, children, the elderly or whatever the cause du jour happens to be at the moment. It started when elected government officials asserted that military veterans are a more fearsome danger to this country than terrorists extremists from other countries. It started when our political system turned to "us against them" and "our side over your side". That's when it all started. It will continue as long as the citizens of this country think that way.

It used to be that many people had a gun --- A gun --- for self defense or dealing with animal issues. But there wasn't this weird gun-nut collecting going on. A lot of men basically have armories in their houses: lots and lots of men do this now. I suppose it's a sign of the revolution coming; I can't think what else it could be about. So the kids pick up that this is cool and it's how they go crazy now.


Those laws have not stopped murder; they have not even made murder a rare occurence. The same holds true for rape, assault, imbezzlement, fraud and drunk driving. The point I am making here is that laws do not prevent crime, they merely provide a mechanism for punishing those who commit a crime.

Laws can make crime less likely. Laws against selling and distributing Rohypnol so that men can use it for rape have helped. I guess you could say it's fine to flood the market with rape drugs because drugs don't cause rape, men cause rape, but you know what? I think there should be as much of a shortage of rape drugs as possible.

Grenades are plainly normal walking soldier equipment and thus covered under the Second Amendment. If there were not (clearly unconstitutional) laws against them, crazies would run through schools throwing a live grenade in every classroom they passed. A lot of weapons of mass destruction are illegal: nukes, cannon, drones, rockets --- because if they were legal, people would use them for mass destruction. People do that. People are using assault weapons for mass destruction. And the high-capacity magazines. I think they should be just as illegal as grenades and rape drugs. I probably won't see that until there are half-a-dozen more high death count rampage teen killings, however.


Until this country changes its attitude and approach, nothing will be resolved. Until we, as a nation, decide that respect for others and their point of view (with a reasonable consideration, collaboration and compromise) can and will provide viable solutions to this country's problems, we are fated to slowly degenerate into tyranny (if not anarchy). I am skeptical that this society will ever be capable of doing that.

Well said. I entirely agree with all of that.

[ConHog]

Well, it seems you missed a few stereotypes in this post; where is mention of dumb blondes, women drivers, or the rednecks kidnapped by aliens?

Seriously, you really believe that black drug crime and ghetto shootings are "acceptable"??? Your concept of public education is that public schools are all "crime-ridden, dangerous, bully-haven schools" and that teens get guns by stealing from "gun nut Dads"??? Really???

In answer to your question at the end of your post, the "gun nut stuff" started when the media and uninformed, intellectually lazy folks decided that anyone who owns a gun is the problem and a danger to society. It started when those same folks and the media decided to characterize (if not demonize) law abiding citizens who own guns as people who do not care about human life, children, the elderly or whatever the cause du jour happens to be at the moment. It started when elected government officials asserted that military veterans are a more fearsome danger to this country than terrorists extremists from other countries. It started when our political system turned to "us against them" and "our side over your side". That's when it all started. It will continue as long as the citizens of this country think that way.

I have been watching this thread for some time now. It is clear that there are those who think banning firearms will resolve the issue. To them, I would point out that murder in all its various forms is illegal by a plethora of local, state and federal laws. Those laws have not stopped murder; they have not even made murder a rare occurence. The same holds true for rape, assault, imbezzlement, fraud and drunk driving. The point I am making here is that laws do not prevent crime, they merely provide a mechanism for punishing those who commit a crime.

Until this country changes its attitude and approach, nothing will be resolved. Until we, as a nation, decide that respect for others and their point of view (with a reasonable consideration, collaboration and compromise) can and will provide viable solutions to this country's problems, we are fated to slowly degenerate into tyranny (if not anarchy). I am skeptical that this society will ever be capable of doing that.

Touches on something that I'v mentioned several times , and some just flat out ignore. It is NOT access to guns which is the problem. I don't know how old you are or where you grew up, or most of the posters here, but I'm 41. I grew up in rural Arkansas.

When I was in high school guns were EASILY accessible. By easily I mean a person could walk out to the parking lot, student's or teacher's , and pick out any pickup truck, open the door (the unlocked door) and select a rifle. Most of the guys hunted before and after school and just brought their guns to school with them. As far as I can remember there wasn't even a rule against carrying them on campus, although no one that I know of ever did

Somehow in all of that, no one ever got shot, nor even threatened with a gun, and we had some knockdown drag out fights nearly every day on campus.

SOMETHING that changed .

Now to address the crowd who claims that these sorts of killings haven't increased. That is complete and utter horse manure. How many shootings would there be if kids had such easy access to guns that we had back in the day? How many fights would escalate into "get yer gun?" Denying that simple truth is nonsense.

SOMETHING absolutely has changed to where suddenly its not just fringe few that is doing the shooting. It certainly is NOT the guns, but on the other hand the guns DO make it possible. So obviously we need to take common sense steps such as gun free zones and such. Do those steps eliminate these events? No , but common sense tells us they make them less likely to occur.

By the same token common sense tells us GUNS aren't the cause, b/c guns have been around for well nigh 14 centuries and yet here we are today.

There has to be some common ground here where one side can say "okay look, in the wrong hands guns are dangerous and should have some minimal controls " while the other side should be able to respond with "okay look, we recognize that without someone to pull the trigger a gun is unlikely to kill anyone, we only want to make sure that people who shouldn't have a finger on the trigger never do so"

Just screaming back and forth that the other side is wrong won't do a damn thing. Both sides are a little right, and both sides are a lot wrong here.

Gun owners should think of it as how they control access to their own private guns. I have several friends that I trust implicitly and would let them use my guns. I have others that well not so much, and then of course there are acquaintances and total strangers who I would not just trust my guns with at all.

We the people should likewise be able to scrutinize people and determine who we do and do not want having guns.

I believe a new Amendment is going to be the only solution to this. One that more strongly protects both the rights of lawful gun owners and the rights of the people to determine who should not be afforded the former.

[Robert A Whit]

I guess this kid was celebrating "Gun Appreciation Day."

The copycat effect implies that these will be more and more frequent and more and more will be killed each time, as the kids compete.
This one is a little unusual in that the shooter is still alive: usually they suicide.

Mundame, there NEVER was a good reason to make those killings public information.

Why must every mass shooting become news all over this country? Do they need to tell me a lot of kids got killed in CT?

What useful information is that for each of us?

The media creates copy cat killers.

Depending on your ages, some may recall the mass killing many years ago where this nut case had a rifle and from the top of a tower killed students. In Texas is what i am talking of.

I would need to look up the school and date but I don't recall that other mass killings soon happened.

[mundame]

Yeah, to ConHog -- good post.....something has changed. Plural changes, I'd say. Much more gun collecting and storing up is going on. And many more rampage shootings are happening, copycat killings by whites on whites.

It is obvious Congress isn't going to pass any laws against anything, though. Nor are the big O's executive orders going to have any effect on anything whatsoever. So this is just a kick the can down the road exercise and we'll wait till many more such Lanza incidents happen and a Republican administration will finally ban the high-capacity magazines and assault rifles, I expect. Can't be done in a Democratic administration, certainly not during a black and wanna-be socialist administration.

[ConHog]

It used to be that many people had a gun --- A gun --- for self defense or dealing with animal issues. But there wasn't this weird gun-nut collecting going on. A lot of men basically have armories in their houses: lots and lots of men do this now. I suppose it's a sign of the revolution coming; I can't think what else it could be about. So the kids pick up that this is cool and it's how they go crazy now.





Ma'am , I own 57 guns. They are an assortment of rifles, shotguns, pistols, black powder guns, and yes even 2 fully automatic assault rifles.

They are , with the exception of one pistol and one shotgun, locked in a gun safe that is protected both by a numerical lock and by a biometric scanner which will only accept one of three fingerprints. Without both you will not get into my gun safe .

The chances of ANYONE stealing my weapons is virtually nil.

As to why I have so many guns. Well, it's not any of your business, but to calm your fears let me assure you that I have ZERO fear of ever needing them to fight the government. I have ZERO fear of zombies.

I simply enjoy collecting guns. Several of the ones I have are family heirlooms. Others are gifts bought for me over the years. Some I have traded for in the past, one I even found at a local swimming hole when I was a kid.

Not every person who owns a gun, or even several, is some militia freak stockpiling up for the day the south rises again.

And MOST gun owners are folks like myself who lock their guns up for no other reason than they are a pretty large financial investment and we don't want them stolen.

Plainly put, mine are insured and the insurance company wouldn't offer me a rider for extra insurance on them without the gun safe even if I didn't care.


Your paranoia doesn't help solve anything. Not any more than some of these folks paranoia that the government is going to go door to door to confiscate guns.

[mundame]

Mundame, there NEVER was a good reason to make those killings public information.

Why must every mass shooting become news all over this country? Do they need to tell me a lot of kids got killed in CT?

What useful information is that for each of us?

The media creates copy cat killers.

Depending on your ages, some may recall the mass killing many years ago where this nut case had a rifle and from the top of a tower killed students. In Texas is what i am talking of.

I would need to look up the school and date but I don't recall that other mass killings soon happened.

Very creative point! It IS the news media frenzy that creates the copycat killing desire: from what I read, apparently some teenage boys obsess on mass murderers and serial killers. It's a rebellion thing, or else they are crazy.

I don't know how the news thing could be stopped, though. All those little kids, their heads shot to pieces --- news like that is going to get out. Still, you are right, the issue of publicity probably is central to solving the problem.

As for the Texas massacre, yes, copycat mass killings have steadily snowballed since the tower shootings and now the frequency and kill count keeps going up, up, up. There are definitely fashions in psychotic thinking, and this is one.

[mundame]

Ma'am , I own 57 guns. They are an assortment of rifles, shotguns, pistols, black powder guns, and yes even 2 fully automatic assault rifles.

They are , with the exception of one pistol and one shotgun, locked in a gun safe that is protected both by a numerical lock and by a biometric scanner which will only accept one of three fingerprints. Without both you will not get into my gun safe .

The chances of ANYONE stealing my weapons is virtually nil.

As to why I have so many guns. Well, it's not any of your business, but to calm your fears let me assure you that I have ZERO fear of ever needing them to fight the government. I have ZERO fear of zombies.

I simply enjoy collecting guns. Several of the ones I have are family heirlooms. Others are gifts bought for me over the years. Some I have traded for in the past, one I even found at a local swimming hole when I was a kid.

Not every person who owns a gun, or even several, is some militia freak stockpiling up for the day the south rises again.

And MOST gun owners are folks like myself who lock their guns up for no other reason than they are a pretty large financial investment and we don't want them stolen.

Plainly put, mine are insured and the insurance company wouldn't offer me a rider for extra insurance on them without the gun safe even if I didn't care.


Your paranoia doesn't help solve anything. Not any more than some of these folks paranoia that the government is going to go door to door to confiscate guns.



Oh, what a shame! You spoiled your interesting post with the "paranoia" nastiness. I was smiling and looking forward to answering it, but my dreams are shattered.........

[CSM]

"As a blonde female living on a farm who often has a red neck, I skipped those stereotypes."

But do you drive and have you been abducted by aliens?

"Sure. Nobody cares about black-on-black crime, including the blacks who do it. Duh. You all know that. The problem is when whites start massacring each other. That's about us and our children, so we do care."

Generalizations like this re-enforce my perception that some folks are not only intellectually lazy but are also willfully ignorant. I did not necessarily think you, personally, are either but keep it up and I may be persuaded otherwise.


"And yes, public schools are dangerous, bully-ridden crime havens and everyone knows it, which is why people are frantic for alternatives now."

Perhaps they are where you are living but they are not where I am living. See my comment above.

"And obviously the killer teens are getting their guns from gun-nut dads -- gun-nut mom in the case of Adam Lanza, or getting some just-over-18 fool to buy them at a gun show like the Columbine killers, or stealing them from some gun-nut family they know: we KNOW they are doing this. It's in the news accounts, including this New Mexico thing."

It is not "obvious" to me that the dad or mom (as the case may be) are gun nuts ( a term which I am convinced you meant as derogatory). I am not so sure that the "news accounts" are entirely accurate either especially given that IMO many media outlets are agenda driven.

"That is precisely the problem and why many want the assault rifles banned: teens are stealing them more and more often for many, many mass murders. Sorry, but they just are."

That is not the problem... sorry, but you are just wrong. (Notice how that works?)

"It used to be that many people had a gun --- A gun --- for self defense or dealing with animal issues. But there wasn't this weird gun-nut collecting going on. A lot of men basically have armories in their houses: lots and lots of men do this now. I suppose it's a sign of the revolution coming; I can't think what else it could be about. So the kids pick up that this is cool and it's how they go crazy now."

The real truth is you had no idea how many folks had how many guns at any given time. Your assertions are merely speculation that happens to fit your perception.

"Laws can make crime less likely. Laws against selling and distributing Rohypnol so that men can use it for rape have helped. I guess you could say it's fine to flood the market with rape drugs because drugs don't cause rape, men cause rape, but you know what? I think there should be as much of a shortage of rape drugs as possible."

I submit that the drugs in question were not developed so that men can use it for rape. I would prefer to see a shortage of men willing to commit rape but again, despite the laws (starting with rape being illegal) rape still occurs.

"Grenades are plainly normal walking soldier equipment and thus covered under the Second Amendment. If there were not (clearly unconstitutional) laws against them, crazies would run through schools throwing a live grenade in every classroom they passed."

I agree that the 2d Amendment does not specify the type and quantity of arms an individual is allowed to bear. I would point out that at one time, citizens of this country could not only own firearms but also battleships (complete with cannons!). The "crazies" owning such did not sail up and down the coast blasting towns and port to smithereens. So what has changed? Is it the amount of crazy people per capita or is it our culture? In my opinion, it is the latter and until that is addressed, then no amount of gun legislation will remedy the issue.

"A lot of weapons of mass destruction are illegal: nukes, cannon, drones, rockets --- because if they were legal, people would use them for mass destruction. People do that. People are using assault weapons for mass destruction. And the high-capacity magazines. I think they should be just as illegal as grenades and rape drugs. I probably won't see that until there are half-a-dozen more high death count rampage teen killings, however."

Just so you know, rockets and drones are not illegal. There are amateur rocket clubs all over the country and a short trip to any hobby store/electronics parts store enbles a drone building project worthy of the most nefarious crazy out there. It is my opinion that the government has outlawed nukes, machine guns, etc not so much because they worry about you or any other citizen but rather they fear that a populace armed with such could overthrow those in power. The government and our elected officials do not care one iota about the citizens of this country. Last, your stance on the issue and opinion of what should be done is duly noted. Obviously, I do not agree with your opinion. I would point out that our opposing views makes neither one of us an idiot, stupid, or any other typically derogatory characteristic one would normally see at the end of a post such as this.

[tailfins]

Yeah, to ConHog -- good post.....something has changed. Plural changes, I'd say. Much more gun collecting and storing up is going on. And many more rampage shootings are happening, copycat killings by whites on whites.

It is obvious Congress isn't going to pass any laws against anything, though. Nor are the big O's executive orders going to have any effect on anything whatsoever. So this is just a kick the can down the road exercise and we'll wait till many more such Lanza incidents happen and a Republican administration will finally ban the high-capacity magazines and assault rifles, I expect. Can't be done in a Democratic administration, certainly not during a black and wanna-be socialist administration.

Actuarially speaking, what risk probability are you putting your energy into? If all deaths are equally tragic, I'm sure there's other places where resources, including the resource of freedom can be better spent.

[ConHog]

Oh, what a shame! You spoiled your interesting post with the "paranoia" nastiness. I was smiling and looking forward to answering it, but my dreams are shattered.........

Excuse me if I don't apologize to a woman who referred to me as a backwards, gun nut zealot who thinks the government is going to get him for calling her paranoid about guns.

[ConHog]

Actuarially speaking, what risk probability are you putting your energy into? If all deaths are equally tragic, I'm sure there's other places where resources, including the resource of freedom can be better spent.

I'm sure that's true, but people are capable of both multitasking and picking and choosing their battles.

My personal pet peeve is DUI. But that doesn't mean I ignore the negative impact of these shooters or don't get involved in the discussion in how to solve it.

[Robert A Whit]

I am curious.

First a statement then the questions.

When I turn on the news, right out of the chute we are bombarded with awfull news. They say we won't pay any attention to good news and that is their excuse. (ratings in other words)

And we complain about copy cats.

If you love sports and your team won, they save that till the very end. Weather comes before that. And now they dramatize weather all the time.

Questions.

Why do some of you focus on the very bad news no matter the state it takes place in?

Next.

when you hear of mass killings in distant countries, are you as upset as you are when it happens in some state in this country?

When somebody whines that kids got shot, does that help those kids? Does the whining help the family members of the lost kids?

Does tellng me that I must always submit to FBI checks to enjoy the second amendment make you feel better?

If the media shut up about those killings, don't you think the chance of a copy cat finding out is much harder?

If they really are copy cats, blame the media for making this front and center top of the news.

[mundame]

But do you drive and have you been abducted by aliens?

Well, not YET, but I keep hope alive.



Generalizations like this re-enforce my perception that some folks are not only intellectually lazy but are also willfully ignorant. I did not necessarily think you, personally, are either but keep it up and I may be persuaded otherwise.


Do not run away with the idea that I give a damn what you think of me personally. I am willing to discuss issues with people smart and able enough to be civil. The others are worthless and are so very easy to put on Ignore, dozens of them.




"And yes, public schools are dangerous, bully-ridden crime havens and everyone knows it, which is why people are frantic for alternatives now."

Perhaps they are where you are living but they are not where I am living. See my comment above.

Wherever you live, your schools are certainly dangerous havens of bullies and potential massacre sites. THAT is exactly the problem: that the suburban and rural supposed havens of civilization no longer are, perhaps never were. Now that there is a psycho fashion for rampage killings in large numbers, no American school is safe.



It is not "obvious" to me that the dad or mom (as the case may be) are gun nuts ( a term which I am convinced you meant as derogatory).

Well, of COURSE I meant the term to be derogatory!! My goodness, I would hope that was clear enough writing for anyone; I am not trying to be subtle here.


"That is precisely the problem and why many want the assault rifles banned: teens are stealing them more and more often for many, many mass murders. Sorry, but they just are."

That is not the problem... sorry, but you are just wrong. (Notice how that works?)

No, how does it work? You are dead wrong on the facts, and I am right? If teens weren't stealing assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and many other weapons for massacres, hello, we would not be having this discussion.

I am fascinated by how many men simply want to state the problem away. "That never happened!" "That's not happening!" This is a thread about a New Mexico 15-year-old teen who used a gun-nut collection located in his house to shoot his mother and father and three siblings including a two-year-old: what part of that didn't happen? You know, if none of this was happening, there wouldn't be a national discussion of the problem. There wouldn't be a problem. But it is happening, and there is a problem.




The real truth is you had no idea how many folks had how many guns at any given time. Your assertions are merely speculation that happens to fit your perception.

You are probably younger than I am. The gun-nut problem is new. Something has changed. No, people didn't used to have these huge armories in small towns and suburbs like they do now.



I submit that the drugs in question were not developed so that men can use it for rape. I would prefer to see a shortage of men willing to commit rape but again, despite the laws (starting with rape being illegal) rape still occurs.


It would occur a whale of a lot more if Rohypnol were readily available to tip into a woman's drink as soon as she goes to the restroom. This is the whole issue about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Fewer of them around, fewer massacres. Because let's face it, you can't decrease the number of schizies.




I agree that the 2d Amendment does not specify the type and quantity of arms an individual is allowed to bear. I would point out that at one time, citizens of this country could not only own firearms but also battleships (complete with cannons!). The "crazies" owning such did not sail up and down the coast blasting towns and port to smithereens. So what has changed? Is it the amount of crazy people per capita or is it our culture? In my opinion, it is the latter and until that is addressed, then no amount of gun legislation will remedy the issue.

Okay, it's the culture. Video games, IMO. However, arming these violent kids with grenades, rocket launchers, and submachine guns is probably not the responsible way to run a culture.



Just so you know, rockets and drones are not illegal. There are amateur rocket clubs all over the country and a short trip to any hobby store/electronics parts store enbles a drone building project worthy of the most nefarious crazy out there. It is my opinion that the government has outlawed nukes, machine guns, etc not so much because they worry about you or any other citizen but rather they fear that a populace armed with such could overthrow those in power. The government and our elected officials do not care one iota about the citizens of this country. Last, your stance on the issue and opinion of what should be done is duly noted. Obviously, I do not agree with your opinion. I would point out that our opposing views makes neither one of us an idiot, stupid, or any other typically derogatory characteristic one would normally see at the end of a post such as this.


Okay. Drones are probably the Next Big Weapon, then, for the kids to arm and aim at their high school football stadium, and then we can have this discussion all over again focusing on drones. Well, unless someone aims an armed drone at the White House first, of course. Bound to happen. It's only a matter of time.

[tailfins]

I'm sure that's true, but people are capable of both multitasking and picking and choosing their battles.

My personal pet peeve is DUI. But that doesn't mean I ignore the negative impact of these shooters or don't get involved in the discussion in how to solve it.

Insurance companies can multitask. Death is an insurable event. An actuarial approach should be pursued in targeting preventable deaths and the cost of that prevention. The probability of dying at the hands of a mass killer is miniscule.

[ConHog]

I am curious.

First a statement then the questions.

When I turn on the news, right out of the chute we are bombarded with awfull news. They say we won't pay any attention to good news and that is their excuse. (ratings in other words)

And we complain about copy cats.

If you love sports and your team won, they save that till the very end. Weather comes before that. And now they dramatize weather all the time.

Questions.

Why do some of you focus on the very bad news no matter the state it takes place in?

Next.

when you hear of mass killings in distant countries, are you as upset as you are when it happens in some state in this country?

When somebody whines that kids got shot, does that help those kids? Does the whining help the family members of the lost kids?

Does tellng me that I must always submit to FBI checks to enjoy the second amendment make you feel better?

If the media shut up about those killings, don't you think the chance of a copy cat finding out is much harder?

If they really are copy cats, blame the media for making this front and center top of the news.

guns don't kill people, and neither does the media Robert.

[ConHog]

Insurance companies can multitask. Death is an insurable event. An actuarial approach should be pursued in targeting preventable deaths and the cost of that prevention. The probability of dying at the hands of a mass killer is miniscule.

We're people, not insurance companies. We have no responsibility to base our worries on actuary tables.

[Robert A Whit]

guns don't kill people, and neither does the media Robert.

I assure you that I have owned many guns and as you say, they never killed a person.

I did not say the media kills. I said it popularizes things it wants to focus on and discards that which however useful won't make it on your TV.

I am asking if the media creates copy cats? If some nut wants to kill his mother, why then kill innocent kids? Assuming his mom must be guilty about something unless the shooter is plain nuts.

Gun laws don't apply to nuts or criminals. The rest of us are told we must suffer over the acts of the very few. I don't understand that sort of logic.

[ConHog]

I assure you that I have owned many guns and as you say, they never killed a person.

I did not say the media kills. I said it popularizes things it wants to focus on and discards that which however useful won't make it on your TV.

I am asking if the media creates copy cats? If some nut wants to kill his mother, why then kill innocent kids? Assuming his mom must be guilty about something unless the shooter is plain nuts.

Gun laws don't apply to nuts or criminals. The rest of us are told we must suffer over the acts of the very few. I don't understand that sort of logic.

that is of course blatantly untrue. You may as well say say laws against murder don't apply to murderers so why do we bother making murder illegal Robert? Has anyone anywhere ever said "I'd kill that person if it were legal?" Of course not murderers murder regardless of the law.

[tailfins]

We're people, not insurance companies. We have no responsibility to base our worries on actuary tables.

Preventing thirty traffic deaths is just as effective as preventing thirty mass shooting deaths.

[ConHog]

Preventing thirty traffic deaths is just as effective as preventing thirty mass shooting deaths.

but offers little to the families of those 30 mass shooting deaths. The government is charged with the protection of EVERYONE, not just a few.

[mundame]

Excuse me if I don't apologize to a woman who referred to me as a backwards, gun nut zealot who thinks the government is going to get him for calling her paranoid about guns.


Yes!! And who can blame you?! After all, anyone can search above and find that infamous post where I said "ConHog is a backward, gun nut zealot who thinks the government is going to GET him!!!" (I usually would hyphenate gun nut when used as a modifier, however, and I'm going to say that was your mistake in quoting me.)

And if you don't watch out, I shall insult you again -----

Next time I believe I will call you the Pee Pee Man.

[CSM]

"Do not run away with the idea that I give a damn what you think of me personally. I am willing to discuss issues with people smart and able enough to be civil. The others are worthless and are so very easy to put on Ignore, dozens of them."

Understood. Neither of us gives a damn what the other thinks; no point in further discussion then.



"Wherever you live, your schools are certainly dangerous havens of bullies and potential massacre sites...."

Got a link or statiistics to prove that? By the way, you changed your statement from the original. I may agree that schools where I live are POTENTIAL massacre sites.

"THAT is exactly the problem: that the suburban and rural supposed havens of civilization no longer are, perhaps never were. Now that there is a psycho fashion for rampage killings in large numbers, no American school is safe."

I disagree with your assessment of the problem.


"Well, of COURSE I meant the term to be derogatory!! My goodness, I would hope that was clear enough writing for anyone; I am not trying to be subtle here."

I see, so it follows that while you desire others to be civil, you place no such constraint on yourself. Interesting


"No, how does it work? You are dead wrong on the facts, and I am right? If teens weren't stealing assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and many other weapons for massacres, hello, we would not be having this discussion."

If parents taught children respect for others and their property, we would not be having this discussion either. You make an interesting point though; maybe we should ban teens!

"I am fascinated by how many men simply want to state the problem away. "That never happened!" "That's not happening!" This is a thread about a New Mexico 15-year-old teen who used a gun-nut collection located in his house to shoot his mother and father and three siblings including a two-year-old: what part of that didn't happen? You know, if none of this was happening, there wouldn't be a national discussion of the problem. There wouldn't be a problem. But it is happening, and there is a problem."

I am equally fascinated by women who blame all societies ills on men.


"You are probably younger than I am. The gun-nut problem is new. Something has changed. No, people didn't used to have these huge armories in small towns and suburbs like they do now."

I am probably NOT younger than you but am flattered that you think so. Again, you have NO idea how many of what types of firearms people owned. Pure speculation on your part despite your assertions.


"It would occur a whale of a lot more if Rohypnol were readily available to tip into a woman's drink as soon as she goes to the restroom. This is the whole issue about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Fewer of them around, fewer massacres. Because let's face it, you can't decrease the number of schizies."

The issue is NOT "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines". I say if we have fewer crazy people running around there would be fewer massacres. Ban crazy people!


"Okay, it's the culture. Video games, IMO. However, arming these violent kids with grenades, rocket launchers, and submachine guns is probably not the responsible way to run a culture."

There are countries throughout Africa and the Middle East that apparently disagree with that statement. A san aside, I don't think I have seen anyone on this board advocating arming violent kids with ANY sort of weaponry. Perhaps I missed those posts.


"Okay. Drones are probably the Next Big Weapon, then, for the kids to arm and aim at their high school football stadium, and then we can have this discussion all over again focusing on drones. Well, unless someone aims an armed drone at the White House first, of course. Bound to happen. It's only a matter of time."

Perhaps. I would like to think that our nation's capitol is somewhat better protected than that.

[mundame]

I am curious.

First a statement then the questions.

When I turn on the news, right out of the chute we are bombarded with awfull news. They say we won't pay any attention to good news and that is their excuse. (ratings in other words)

And we complain about copy cats.

If you love sports and your team won, they save that till the very end. Weather comes before that. And now they dramatize weather all the time.

Questions.

Why do some of you focus on the very bad news no matter the state it takes place in?

Next.

when you hear of mass killings in distant countries, are you as upset as you are when it happens in some state in this country?

When somebody whines that kids got shot, does that help those kids? Does the whining help the family members of the lost kids?

Does tellng me that I must always submit to FBI checks to enjoy the second amendment make you feel better?

If the media shut up about those killings, don't you think the chance of a copy cat finding out is much harder?

If they really are copy cats, blame the media for making this front and center top of the news.


This point of yours just has to be a lot of any possible solution. It is certainly a copycat thing building up and up with all the coverage. I don't think the news media CAUSED this psychotic fashion, but it's now used as a way for these crazies to compete and keep score --- the survivors say they do that and we know the suiciders did that too, from their computers and websites and so on.

Yeah, the global village news coverage, like the rape in India recently. They want more and more awful atrocities to attract our attention and our mouse clicks so they can make money. It's crazy to take a personal, appalled interest in crime in India, if you think about it.

[tailfins]

but offers little to the families of those 30 mass shooting deaths. The government is charged with the protection of EVERYONE, not just a few.

The government can't prevent all deaths. I will take it a step further. What if the focus, effort and expense misdirected at stopping thirty mass shooting deaths would have prevented sixty cancer deaths?

[ConHog]

"Wherever you live, your schools are certainly dangerous havens of bullies and potential massacre sites...."


was this an actual quote? I assure you that isn't true at all. I'm on our local school board and we have a ZERO tolerance policy for bullies. We don't give ANY leeway or leniency on that issue.

We haven't had a complaint of bullying in 2 years at least that I can remember. Simple enough to figure out why, we made parents responsible for their kids if they can't operate within the school system. You bully you're expelled PERIOD and in Arkansas another public school is not required to accept you for one full school year if you are expelled from another public school. Yet you are still required to attend school by law.

Our parents are informed of that policy in writing at the beginning of every school year. If your child bullies they WILL be expelled, and it is unlikely that the other two school districts that are within reasonable distance will accept them (actually we have a verbal agreement that guarantees they won't and that we won't accept students who have been expelled from them for one school year either)

Bullying problem GONE. We have the occasional fights and such of course and they are handled in a different manner, but that is different than bullying.

I honestly feel that this policy has assured us that we won't get one of these loner kids who feels like no one cares about him and so he shoots up the school then takes his own life.

[ConHog]

The government can't prevent all deaths. I will take it a step further. What if the focus, effort and expense misdirected at stopping thirty mass shooting deaths would have prevented sixty cancer deaths?

Of course they can't prevent all deaths, but they certainly owe it to us to try.

[tailfins]

"Wherever you live, your schools are certainly dangerous havens of bullies and potential massacre sites...."


was this an actual quote? I assure you that isn't true at all. I'm on our local school board and we have a ZERO tolerance policy for bullies. We don't give ANY leeway or leniency on that issue.

We haven't had a complaint of bullying in 2 years at least that I can remember. Simple enough to figure out why, we made parents responsible for their kids if they can't operate within the school system. You bully you're expelled PERIOD and in Arkansas another public school is not required to accept you for one full school year if you are expelled from another public school. Yet you are still required to attend school by law.

Our parents are informed of that policy in writing at the beginning of every school year. If your child bullies they WILL be expelled, and it is unlikely that the other two school districts that are within reasonable distance will accept them (actually we have a verbal agreement that guarantees they won't and that we won't accept students who have been expelled from them for one school year either)

Bullying problem GONE. We have the occasional fights and such of course and they are handled in a different manner, but that is different than bullying.

I honestly feel that this policy has assured us that we won't get one of these loner kids who feels like no one cares about him and so he shoots up the school then takes his own life.


That's just begging for a lawsuit. It's just plain wrong, too. The proper place for a bully is a special disciplinary class. I'm pretty sure that's how it's done in most of New England. Parents that have made every reasonable effort to control a delinquent shouldn't be penalized.


Of course they can't prevent all deaths, but they certainly owe it to us to try.

Are some deaths (or lives) more important than others?

[Robert A Whit]

that is of course blatantly untrue. You may as well say say laws against murder don't apply to murderers so why do we bother making murder illegal Robert? Has anyone anywhere ever said "I'd kill that person if it were legal?" Of course not murderers murder regardless of the law.

So, it is your belief that the proven killers obeyed the law? Apparently you missed my real meaning. Matter of fact your last sentence reflects my actual meaning.

[mundame]

"Do not run away with the idea that I give a damn what you think of me personally. I am willing to discuss issues with people smart and able enough to be civil. The others are worthless and are so very easy to put on Ignore, dozens of them."

Understood. Neither of us gives a damn what the other thinks; no point in further discussion then.


That's not quite what I meant......I am interested in what you think about issues; I am not interested in getting into the sort of mind games so many play where I have to submit to insult in order to talk to you. You know, the sort of posts that start with degrading comments and putdowns and then move on to substantive points one wants to reply to! Such an interesting new Internet conversational ploy.





"Well, of COURSE I meant the term to be derogatory!! My goodness, I would hope that was clear enough writing for anyone; I am not trying to be subtle here."

I see, so it follows that while you desire others to be civil, you place no such constraint on yourself. Interesting

Are you one of those people who assumes every general comment is a personal attack? I used to do that.....but that was many years ago. I continue to think you must be younger than I am. When I insult you, you will probably notice. When I make general remarks, I am never insulting you personally. I gather you yourself think you qualify as a "gun nut" and have decided to take offense. But consider: if I have to constantly avoid saying what I think for fear someone will decide it applies to him, I'm effectively muzzled and can't say anything. I'm going to say what I think. But unless I specify you, I am NOT intending to insult you whatever I say generally.




If parents taught children respect for others and their property, we would not be having this discussion either. You make an interesting point though; maybe we should ban teens!

Winning idea of the day, no question.




I am equally fascinated by women who blame all societies ills on men.

Nearly every societal ill is mainly caused by men. You know the stats, right? A few bad things, women do. ALL I ASK is that the rate of crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, pedophilia, assault, and on and on, be the SAME level in men as it is in women. Until men commit crimes at no greater rate than women do, I'll continue to say "men" or males when discussing, for instance, mass shootings, which are almost wholly a male crime.




I say if we have fewer crazy people running around there would be fewer massacres. Ban crazy people!

Well, really, that is exactly what does need to be done. More state institutions, quicker commitments, etc. That could go a long way toward reducing the problem.



"Okay, it's the culture. Video games, IMO. However, arming these violent kids with grenades, rocket launchers, and submachine guns is probably not the responsible way to run a culture."

There are countries throughout Africa and the Middle East that apparently disagree with that statement.

Which proves my point, not yours. These countries are the basket cases of the world.

[Robert A Whit]

This point of yours just has to be a lot of any possible solution. It is certainly a copycat thing building up and up with all the coverage. I don't think the news media CAUSED this psychotic fashion, but it's now used as a way for these crazies to compete and keep score --- the survivors say they do that and we know the suiciders did that too, from their computers and websites and so on.

Yeah, the global village news coverage, like the rape in India recently. They want more and more awful atrocities to attract our attention and our mouse clicks so they can make money. It's crazy to take a personal, appalled interest in crime in India, if you think about it.

I don't know what good it does to overload my TV news programs with such crimes at all. I would say they can report it. But must they keep it top of the news for 5 or more minutes? I tend to suspect a lot of those criminals don't sit around watching TV all day long. But why make it so easy on them to find out about a mass killing? A simple short statement tells me all I need to know.

My TV station bombarded me with reports on that rape in India.

Must the news always be bad stuff?

[ConHog]

That's just begging for a lawsuit. It's just plain wrong, too. The proper place for a bully is a special disciplinary class. I'm pretty sure that's how it's done in most of New England. Parents that have made every reasonable effort to control a delinquent shouldn't be penalized.

Honestly, we've expelled 3 kids in 5 years in our school district. Only one of those has been since we instituted our zero tolerance for bullying policy.

His parents DID sue, and lost.

And our policy is pretty well defined, like I said we don't consider the occasional fight bullying. Because it's not. There has to be a pattern , and it has to happen over a period of time and in between the time the school becomes aware of the issue and the time we as a school board expel the student for bullying, I can assure you that the parents have been contacted and been asked to help solve the problem.

In the one case where we did move to expel the father held firm to the "kids will be kids line" and I'm pretty sure the mother was an abused wife.

As a school board member, parents are not my concern, children are. If your child is harming another child or interfering in their education, how their punishment affects you as a parent is of no concern to me.

This year we've had 3 students referred to the school board as potential bullies. In two of those cases the parents refused to communicate with the school until they got a registered letter from the school board informing them that the school board would be voting to expel their child. Then suddenly they became real cooperative and hey their kids changed their behaviors.

The third, well he ended up getting arrested for criminal offenses and was taken off the school's hands before a meeting was needed.

Sorry i I led to an impression that we are just sitting in a castle waiting to kick kids out without any sort of conversation with parents.

[mundame]

"Wherever you live, your schools are certainly dangerous havens of bullies and potential massacre sites...."


was this an actual quote? I assure you that isn't true at all. I'm on our local school board and we have a ZERO tolerance policy for bullies. We don't give ANY leeway or leniency on that issue.

We haven't had a complaint of bullying in 2 years at least that I can remember. Simple enough to figure out why, we made parents responsible for their kids if they can't operate within the school system. You bully you're expelled PERIOD and in Arkansas another public school is not required to accept you for one full school year if you are expelled from another public school. Yet you are still required to attend school by law.

Our parents are informed of that policy in writing at the beginning of every school year. If your child bullies they WILL be expelled, and it is unlikely that the other two school districts that are within reasonable distance will accept them (actually we have a verbal agreement that guarantees they won't and that we won't accept students who have been expelled from them for one school year either)

Bullying problem GONE. We have the occasional fights and such of course and they are handled in a different manner, but that is different than bullying.

I honestly feel that this policy has assured us that we won't get one of these loner kids who feels like no one cares about him and so he shoots up the school then takes his own life.



That is so great. I applaud your Arkansas school boards for dealing with this awful problem, and really, I bet this does go a LONG way toward avoiding school shootings. One of the possible solutions to this major national problem. And the improvement of life generally in a population trained not to do or expect the constant abuse of bullying --- incalculable. Migod, this could be the answer. I wish every school system would do this.

[ConHog]

That is so great. I applaud your Arkansas school boards for dealing with this awful problem, and really, I bet this does go a LONG way toward avoiding school shootings. One of the possible solutions to this major national problem. And the improvement of life generally in a population trained not to do or expect the constant abuse of bullying --- incalculable. Migod, this could be the answer. I wish every school system would do this.

I bet most schools do. When I was in school, bullying was just part of it, and a parent who did complain was considered a pain in the ass.

Now, we are proactive, we act BEFORE a parent has to complain. As I've said we've had 3 cases brought to the school board's attention and zero complaints. The school acted before a complaint needed be made.

I can't imagine we're much different than most , except perhaps in our no strike rule.

But we go further than that, we encourage our kids to be friends , or at least friendly, with everyone. And to accept people's differences, nay even embrace them.

All our students up to and including high school sit in groups of four during class. The teachers specifically break friends apart and try to seat different groups of kids with each other.

We have sports coaches who are very good about actively pursuing those kids who are generally left out of sports to try to get them involved. That goes a long way. Of course not everyone gets to play, but sometimes just practicing with the team and just getting to hang out with them goes along way.

We have GROUP study halls. Unlike most schools where talking is prohibited and each student is meant to be studying on their own. We encourage group sessions, and we have found that kids naturally gravitate to who can help them the most. Meaning the quarterback and the math nerd might decide that hey have a mutual need for each other because we don't allow our athletes to slide by, if they don't earn the grades, they don't play PERIOD. and the math nerd, well the quarterback can go a long way in saying "hey this kid's alright, don't pick on him"

We also have very good parent volunteers. On any given day we probably have at least 10 on each campus. Fully background checked of course.

These parents fill in voids at recess to keep things calm, they monitor locker rooms, they wander in and out of restrooms, they generally just help maintain order.

We have a good relation with some local businesses and we offer some pretty generous rewards for good behavior. Every child at our school who goes a month without any behavior problems gets a free movie pass to the local cinema, as well as a free Pizza.

Basically if you're a high school boy, that's a date that you don't have to pay for.

But that's the carrot, we also have the stick.

If you fight you lose the right to attend any extracurricular activities for a month. Meaning athletic events, academic competitions, or whatever.

We also bring in experts and hold mandatory seminars for the parents . Mandatory meaning we have 1 every other month and at least one parent is required to show up at every other one at minimum. How do we enforce that you might ask. Simple, it's a grade requirement. Bring a parent to Seminar. Doesn't happen, you fail the class. And actually we are in the process of working out the bugs of figuring out a way to let parents attend from home but assuring that they do.

At these seminars , we have door prizes courtesy of local businesses, we provide snacks, and we let parents know everything about what has happened in our school system over the last month as far as disciplinary actions, and we allow them to give input on what were doing right, and what we can do better.

Our experts , which aren't at every meeting, then will help everyone better understand what the school's roll can and should be in helping raise not just an educated person, but a healthy person. As well as address any BIG issues, such as Sandy Hook and help educate parents as to what our school is doing right to prevent such from happening here, and educating us on what improvements we can make.

Now kids are kids, and some shits going to happen regardless, but there are creative solutions out there to helping solve as many of these issues as possible.

The answer is not ban guns. If it were, how simple would that be?

[logroller]

Naaaaah, I don't think you are a big-shot revolutionary or ever likely to be one, however many assault rifles you've got loaded and propped up near the door. I think there is a high fantasy component connected with assault rifles -- indeed, fantasy is ALL most of them are used for. Like the dried Survival Food bins and such many people who own assault rifles go in for, hoping to see The Revolution.

Unluckily, the kids or adult crazies steal them from the fantasizers and actually do use them for assaulting, more and more and more frequently.

Saying that's a problem doesn't make it not a problem; of course it's a problem. You gun guys have tied yourselves into a corner where you have to defend all these rampage murderers. I wouldn't care to have that job......
My guns are either locked in safes, cases or on my person. Yes i have food bins and water; its in case of disaster, rather man-made or act of God.
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity; so whatever bad luck which exists stems from lack of preparation or ripened opportunity. So when bad things happen, which they will, I am prepared. I consider that my personal duty, as well as my civic one. Let me explain. I live in earthquake country-- an earthquake will happen at some point. When it does, there's a good chance I may be without utilities like gas, water, electricity; supply chains will be disrupted and transportation as well emegency response will be over-burdened. these are things i can prepare for-- i know how much gas, food and water ill need for two weeks-- i dont need government requirments to do so. This differs from, say, building codes for earthquake survivability-- I dont have working knowledge of structural ratings. Same issue, earthquakes, but vastly different capabilities for preparation. But to say there is a problem and refusing to take reasoned precautions is contributory to the problem. If one fails to take simple precautions to a likely threat, and becomes a victim, then through their own negligence have contributed to the problem. Thus we see why defending against threats is a matter of personal responsibility first; for only then can We address the public welfare. Whether you want the job or not, somebody has to do it. We as a society have become despondant to the fact individuals have free will; a personal choice which bears its responsibilities and results, good or bad. Passing the buck to some one else doesn't solve the problem, it defers it. When more people defer their responsibility than accept it, responsibilities inevitably go unmet-- and the situation worsens. That's why we've seen such an increase in these homicides over the last few years.
Its like a game of hot potato where most players have chosen to not catch at all because potatoes are dirty, leaving others to carry on-- only with more potatoes than active players, some fall-- and the nonparticipating blame everybody else for letting it happen and demand limits for the size and number of potatoes and the length of arms and number of hands to used. How bout you get your hands in the game before tellin me how it's supposed to be handled? Otherwise, you'll soon find yourself without a potato to catch. Metaphorically speaking, that's freedom, use it or lose it.

[ConHog]

My guns are either locked in safes, cases or on my person. Yes i have food bins and water; its in case of disaster, rather man-made or act of God.
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity; so whatever bad luck which exists stems from lack of preparation or ripened opportunity. So when bad things happen, which they will, I am prepared. I consider that my personal duty, as well as my civic one. Let me explain. I live in earthquake country-- an earthquake will happen at some point. When it does, there's a good chance I may be without utilities like gas, water, electricity; supply chains will be disrupted and transportation as well emegency response will be over-burdened. these are things i can prepare for-- i know how much gas, food and water ill need for two weeks-- i dont need government requirments to do so. This differs from, say, building codes for earthquake survivability-- I dont have working knowledge of structural ratings. Same issue, earthquakes, but vastly different capabilities for preparation. But to say there is a problem and refusing to take reasoned precautions is contributory to the problem. If one fails to take simple precautions to a likely threat, and becomes a victim, then through their own negligence have contributed to the problem. Thus we see why defending against threats is a matter of personal responsibility first; for only then can We address the public welfare. Whether you want the job or not, somebody has to do it. We as a society have become despondant to the fact individuals have free will; a personal choice which bears its responsibilities and results, good or bad. Passing the buck to some one else doesn't solve the problem, it defers it. When more people defer their responsibility than accept it, responsibilities inevitably go unmet-- and the situation worsens. That's why we've seen such an increase in these homicides over the last few years.
Its like a game of hot potato where most players have chosen to not catch at all because potatoes are dirty, leaving others to carry on-- only with more potatoes than active players, some fall-- and the nonparticipating blame everybody else for letting it happen and demand limits for the size and number of potatoes and the length of arms and number of hands to used. How bout you get your hands in the game before tellin me how it's supposed to be handled? Otherwise, you'll soon find yourself without a potato to catch. Metaphorically speaking, that's freedom, use it or lose it.

What you say is true, to a point. BUT when people making poor choices affects society as a whole, isn't that exactly when government should step in?

Certainly I don't mean by banning guns. But simply saying "hey some people just choose to kill" and washing your hands of it certainly isn't the answer.

I think we owe it to society to ask WHY some people choose to do these things and then try to get them to make better choices.

[mundame]

My guns are either locked in safes, cases or on my person. Yes i have food bins and water; its in case of disaster, rather man-made or act of God.
Luck is when preparation meets opportunity; so whatever bad luck which exists stems from lack of preparation or ripened opportunity. So when bad things happen, which they will, I am prepared. I consider that my personal duty, as well as my civic one. Let me explain. I live in earthquake country-- an earthquake will happen at some point. When it does, there's a good chance I may be without utilities like gas, water, electricity; supply chains will be disrupted and transportation as well emegency response will be over-burdened. these are things i can prepare for-- i know how much gas, food and water ill need for two weeks-- i dont need government requirments to do so. This differs from, say, building codes for earthquake survivability-- I dont have working knowledge of structural ratings. Same issue, earthquakes, but vastly different capabilities for preparation. But to say there is a problem and refusing to take reasoned precautions is contributory to the problem. If one fails to take simple precautions to a likely threat, and becomes a victim, then through their own negligence have contributed to the problem. Thus we see why defending against threats is a matter of personal responsibility first; for only then can We address the public welfare. Whether you want the job or not, somebody has to do it. We as a society have become despondant to the fact individuals have free will; a personal choice which bears its responsibilities and results, good or bad. Passing the buck to some one else doesn't solve the problem, it defers it. When more people defer their responsibility than accept it, responsibilities inevitably go unmet-- and the situation worsens. That's why we've seen such an increase in these homicides over the last few years.


Oh, well, all this is excellent, as you don't need me to tell you. I expect I am describing us more than you; I congratulate you on your gun safes. Some home nagging perhaps had better start.........I'd like to see some changes along your lines.

As for survivalism, I have unusual skills for 2013 and regularly practice many of them, though I'm not eating our own killed meat as much as I used to. As for stored food, I swear to God, if he buys any more pasta I'm going to slap his hand.


I am not understanding your last two sentences, about people defering responsibility and that affecting the increase in homicides. Could you expand on that?

[CSM]

That's not quite what I meant......I am interested in what you think about issues; I am not interested in getting into the sort of mind games so many play where I have to submit to insult in order to talk to you. You know, the sort of posts that start with degrading comments and putdowns and then move on to substantive points one wants to reply to! Such an interesting new Internet conversational ploy.

Yet that is exactly what you did. You intentionally tossed out what you admit is an insult in general and then expect others to be civil. Just sayin. That aside, I seldom resort to personal attacks (there are exceptions, particularly towards a few who, fortunately for me, no longer post on this board) and try very hard to keep my discourse as civil as possible.


Are you one of those people who assumes every general comment is a personal attack? I used to do that.....but that was many years ago. I continue to think you must be younger than I am. When I insult you, you will probably notice. When I make general remarks, I am never insulting you personally. I gather you yourself think you qualify as a "gun nut" and have decided to take offense. But consider: if I have to constantly avoid saying what I think for fear someone will decide it applies to him, I'm effectively muzzled and can't say anything. I'm going to say what I think. But unless I specify you, I am NOT intending to insult you whatever I say generally.

Not necessarily, but it was clear that your general comment was meant as an insult directed at the general population of posters on this board. As to whether you or I are the older, suffice it to say that I am well into my sixties. I am also not necessarily offended nor do I think I qualify as a "gun nut" though I do own several firearms. I do not believe anyone should avoid saying what they think but I do believe that one can express their opinion without offering any insult at all.


Nearly every societal ill is mainly caused by men. You know the stats, right? A few bad things, women do. ALL I ASK is that the rate of crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, pedophilia, assault, and on and on, be the SAME level in men as it is in women. Until men commit crimes at no greater rate than women do, I'll continue to say "men" or males when discussing, for instance, mass shootings, which are almost wholly a male crime.


Interesting take, though I do not agree. I suspect that there is enough blame to go around for both genders though I often speculate that women are far more subtle and often times are the ones "behind the scenes" (so to speak) and are the impetus behind those men commiting many crimes. I have often thought that when a crime is commited, there is a woman and/or money involved somehow.


Which proves my point, not yours. These countries are the basket cases of the world.

That is your opinion. I have no doubt there are many who live in those countries who have a very low opinion of the United States.

All the above aside, I do find your perspective interesting as evidenced by the fact that I have commented/replied specifically to your posts. I do not necessarily agree with some of your statements but they do provoke some thought and consideration on my part.

[logroller]

What you say is true, to a point. BUT when people making poor choices affects society as a whole, isn't that exactly when government should step in?

Certainly I don't mean by banning guns. But simply saying "hey some people just choose to kill" and washing your hands of it certainly isn't the answer.

I think we owe it to society to ask WHY some people choose to do these things and then try to get them to make better choices.

Is there a balance, of course, but attempts to subvert laws of nature will inevitably fail. Take away a man's incentive to be responsible, and he'll be irresponsible.
So, we need to show them the merits of the right choices to have any chance of getting them to follow. You know the saying, give a man a fish...
http://youtu.be/CGTvWkmEAtM

[ConHog]

Is there a balance, of course, but attempts to subvert laws of nature will inevitably fail. Take away a man's incentive to be responsible, and he'll be irresponsible.
So, we need to show them the merits of the right choices to have any chance of getting them to follow. You know the saying, give a man a fish...
http://youtu.be/CGTvWkmEAtM

This is true, but I think when we're dealing with kids , many of who are angry to begin with, things have to be approached differently.

Many of them don't have, or at least they feel like they don't have, that natural person in their lives who is telling them they are worth something. That they are wanted, that they are valued.

Now SHOULD it be governement, or more specifically a school's job to provide that? Of course not, but we have found that kids who have that are more likely to learn , more likely to make better grades, and more likely to go to college, and certainly that is a school's job, or should be.

I consider that to be part of teaching a kid to fish. We absolutely strive to make sure no kid graduates from our school feeling like he has no place in society and I would take it as a personal failure if that happened.

[bingster]

That's not quite what I meant......I am interested in what you think about issues; I am not interested in getting into the sort of mind games so many play where I have to submit to insult in order to talk to you. You know, the sort of posts that start with degrading comments and putdowns and then move on to substantive points one wants to reply to! Such an interesting new Internet conversational ploy.



Are you one of those people who assumes every general comment is a personal attack? I used to do that.....but that was many years ago. I continue to think you must be younger than I am. When I insult you, you will probably notice. When I make general remarks, I am never insulting you personally. I gather you yourself think you qualify as a "gun nut" and have decided to take offense. But consider: if I have to constantly avoid saying what I think for fear someone will decide it applies to him, I'm effectively muzzled and can't say anything. I'm going to say what I think. But unless I specify you, I am NOT intending to insult you whatever I say generally.





Winning idea of the day, no question.





Nearly every societal ill is mainly caused by men. You know the stats, right? A few bad things, women do. ALL I ASK is that the rate of crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, pedophilia, assault, and on and on, be the SAME level in men as it is in women. Until men commit crimes at no greater rate than women do, I'll continue to say "men" or males when discussing, for instance, mass shootings, which are almost wholly a male crime.





Well, really, that is exactly what does need to be done. More state institutions, quicker commitments, etc. That could go a long way toward reducing the problem.




Which proves my point, not yours. These countries are the basket cases of the world.



I like your comments about women vs men, except I must go on record to say that Oprah all but ruined my second marriage. We're not ALL that bad.

[mundame]

I like your comments about women vs men, except I must go on record to say that Oprah all but ruined my second marriage. We're not ALL that bad.


No, certainly not. A few of you are excellent. ;)

[red states rule]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cIB7Jx-mbOY/TvxEfkiOLXI/AAAAAAAAA9M/Bl7bFQTSH1k/s1600/GUN%2BCONTROL%252C%2BOBAMA%2BCARTOONS.jpg