Breaking News: Gunman Reportedly Kills 5 at Small California University

[this_is_nascar 162]

This nonsense has to stop.

 

 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/02/10985738-gunman-reportedly-kills-5-at-small-calif-university

[Ronald Silver 2]

They probably ran out of diet soda at the cafeteria....

[Sigman 41]

This is all that MSNBC will report, only the bad with guns. I don't post anything related to gun violence. It only helps their agenda.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I don't post anything related to gun violence. It only helps their agenda.

 

agreed, not sure why people do it here

[Krdshrk 3,878]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/1-reportedly-dead-several-wounded-in-shooting-at-california-medical-school/

[johnp 45]

Don't worry guys, I highly doubt the media will put a negative spin on a tragedy.

[TheWombat 67]

Re: the not posting. I personally would rather the pro-gun forums, media, organizations do post about these tragedies and that the NRA/SAF etc pro-actively investigate them and answer questions such as:

• Was the firearm(s) in question legally owned by the shooter(s)?
  
• Based on what can be found out about the shooter(s) should they have been allowed to own firearm(s)?
  
• Were there warning signs that were overlooked?
  
• Were there any legal CCW people in the vicinity who were unable to carry firearms legally due to local restrictions (e.g. school zone etc)?
  
• Were there any legal CCW people in the vicinity who were carrying a firearm legally that did/didn't respond and why?
  
• How long did it take for the LEOs to arrive?
  
• If there had been CCW holders nearby who were legally armed, how likely would it that the tragedy would be averted or lessened?
  
• etc
  

 

These tragedies are often as pertinent to show the benefits of the pro-gun as the anti-gun.

 

While I would like to see the media report on the cases where someone legally used a firearm to save lives, I also believe that we should be mature enough to be able to debate and discuss the tragedies without just resorting to "it's our right" when it comes to discussions on legally carrying firearms.

 

just my personal views, and appreciate others will have different views.

 

TheWombat

[Ronald Silver 2]

Kalifornia is just whacked out. Don't they have an open carry law with empty magazines? Or did they just banned it?

 

[this_is_nascar 162]

This is all that MSNBC will report, only the bad with guns. I don't post anything related to gun violence. It only helps their agenda.

 

 

Good point. I had never thought of it that way. I post them for a topic of open conversation and debate. Maybe I should re-think that.

[keithco88 3]

Re: the not posting. I personally would rather the pro-gun forums, media, organizations do post about these tragedies and that the NRA/SAF etc pro-actively investigate them and answer questions such as:

• Was the firearm(s) in question legally owned by the shooter(s)?
  
• Based on what can be found out about the shooter(s) should they have been allowed to own firearm(s)?
  
• Were there warning signs that were overlooked?
  
• Were there any legal CCW people in the vicinity who were unable to carry firearms legally due to local restrictions (e.g. school zone etc)?
  
• Were there any legal CCW people in the vicinity who were carrying a firearm legally that did/didn't respond and why?
  
• How long did it take for the LEOs to arrive?
  
• If there had been CCW holders nearby who were legally armed, how likely would it that the tragedy would be averted or lessened?
  
• etc
  

 

These tragedies are often as pertinent to show the benefits of the pro-gun as the anti-gun.

 

While I would like to see the media report on the cases where someone legally used a firearm to save lives, I also believe that we should be mature enough to be able to debate and discuss the tragedies without just resorting to "it's our right" when it comes to discussions on legally carrying firearms.

 

just my personal views, and appreciate others will have different views.

 

TheWombat

 

+1 for TheWombat

 

California has THE STRICTEST gunlaws in the country according to the Brady scorecard and yet this still happened. In addition to what TheWombat has asked I'd like to see:

 

a) was the firearm used "legal" for sale in that state?

b) was the firearm legally purchased, transferred?

c) was it a firearm that was legally purchased/transferred but illegally modified (i.e. extended mags, serial number filed off)?

d) did the location of the shooting have and follow the mandated processes for the incident?

 

Our government (sorry but I'm as fervent in 1st amendment as I am 2nd amendment, so let the media spin it however they want) IS responsible for answering these questions if they continue to insist that the regulations they put on the books are effective. Further the judicial branch of gov't is responsible for uncovering the facts of the case and presenting them with regards to the laws on the books. Neither of these things happen today and we're responsible for finding people who would do this, convincing them that it's worthwhile to run for office, and get them elected.

 

Short of that, demand answers to these questions from our elected & appointed representatives.

 

How the data/situation plays out is how it is. My point is simply that we never get the facts we deserve and are forced to swallow legislation and "justice" based on hearsay with no accountability back to the parties that fed it to us if/when it's ineffective.

 

"Quit b!tchin & start doin!" ~ not-so-Tibetan proverb

[Ray Ray 3,566]

a) was the firearm used "legal" for sale in that state?

b) was the firearm legally purchased, transferred?

c) was it a firearm that was legally purchased/transferred but illegally modified (i.e. extended mags, serial number filed off)?

d) did the location of the shooting have and follow the mandated processes for the incident?

 

Does any of this matter? No. A murderer is a murderer. Whether he uses a knife or a bat or a car. IT'S MURDER. The who/what/where/when/how/why stuff is all nonsense. IT'S MURDER

[BlueLineFish 615]

This is further proof that strict gun laws don't stop bad things from happening.

[keithco88 3]

Does any of this matter? No. A murderer is a murderer. Whether he uses a knife or a bat or a car. IT'S MURDER. The who/what/where/when/how/why stuff is all nonsense. IT'S MURDER

 

RayRay - completely agree...i'm just making the point that, as BlueLineFish says below, it's very possible that our gun laws don't work, but in order to do something about it we need to prove it to the clowns that put them there in the first place.

[Dan 177]

Can't play the anti's game. No matter where the gun came from if it was involved in a crime they will spin it to their cause instead of focusing on the actual criminal behind the weapon who is responsible for the crime.

 

Legal gun in CA - Another example that they need more "common sense" gun control laws

 

Illegal gun in CA - Obviously brought into CA illegally from another state that has very lax gun control laws, they should model their laws on CA's

 

Stolen gun - See, guns don't belong in society, they make their way to the bad guys no matter what and they should all be banned.

[johnp 45]

I thought this was a good picture and related to the story at hand.

[bbk 188]

Its debatable that someone with a concise plan to kill people wouldn't care if people are armed or not. Look at the Ft Hood shooting, or the attacks that target LEOs specifically. We talk about deterrents, like security system signs outside of homes, but those homes are still targeted with little discrimination (given there is something worth the trouble).

 

I don't know what there is to be learned from this incident yet. This isn't a gun-violence issue IMO, but something closer to home... perhaps the alienation/bullying argument (and what it can lead to). After having read a myriad of different stories about this same issue, a lot of the language points towards this, plus this guy might have had a screw loose.

[johnp 45]

I agree it is debatable, but I don't really see a correlation between the Ft. Hood shooting/cop killers, and school shootings. The first two know that their victims are going to be armed. School shooters are aware that none of their victims will have any means to defend themselves. IMO, if a persons goal is to kill as many people as possible they are going to choose the path of least resistance. I think any deterrent is a good means of stopping something bad before it happens.

[bulpup 98]

I agree it is debatable, but I don't really see a correlation between the Ft. Hood shooting/cop killers, and school shootings. The first two know that their victims are going to be armed. School shooters are aware that none of their victims will have any means to defend themselves. IMO, if a persons goal is to kill as many people as possible they are going to choose the path of least resistance. I think any deterrent is a good means of stopping something bad before it happens.

 

It can't be assumed that an active shooter actually cares about a "high score."

 

In this case it the preliminaries point to revenge. Anger, hatred and not caring if they live at the end of it are the signs of a disturbed person. And anyone that is at that point isn't likely to apply logic.

[NJScott 15]

I agree it is debatable, but I don't really see a correlation between the Ft. Hood shooting/cop killers, and school shootings. The first two know that their victims are going to be armed. School shooters are aware that none of their victims will have any means to defend themselves. IMO, if a persons goal is to kill as many people as possible they are going to choose the path of least resistance. I think any deterrent is a good means of stopping something bad before it happens.

 

The Ft. Hood shooter knew full well that soldiers there were prohibited from carrying weapons. That's why he had a full 10 minutes to slaughter his victims before the female civilian cop responded and took him down. In California, even local LEOS must enter military installations sans firearms.

[BigHayden 77]

California has THE STRICTEST gunlaws in the country according to the Brady scorecard and yet this still happened.

 

A shooting spree in CA? That un-possible!

 

This is further proof that strict gun laws don't stop bad things from happening.

 

Amen brother!

 

Its debatable that someone with a concise plan to kill people wouldn't care if people are armed or not. Look at the Ft Hood shooting, or the attacks that target LEOs specifically.

The Ft. Hood shooter knew full well that soldiers there were prohibited from carrying weapons. That's why he had a full 10 minutes to slaughter his victims before the female civilian cop responded and took him down. In California, even local LEOS must enter military installations sans firearms.

 

What he said ^

 

Military installations inside the US are more disarmed than public schools, since cops can carry legally in a school.