Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 09, 2014

A shopper with a legal concealed handgun pulled his weapon and confronted Jerad Miller at the Las Vegas Walmart Sunday, but he didn't realize Miller's wife Amanda was with him and also armed. Joseph Wilcox, 31, was shot by her and died without firing a shot. Minutes later, Amanda shot her husband to death and killed herself. Wilcox, who was standing near the checkout area when the Millers entered the store, "told his friend he was going to confront the suspect," Asst. Sheriff Kevin McMahill said. "He immediately and heroically moved into a position. "Amanda shot him in the ribs area where he immediately collapsed."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Proof that no one should have a Concealed Carry and own a weapon. Well that closes that debate.

#1 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-09 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Poor SOB thought having a gun made him superman.

Thankfully he didn't get anyone else killed.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-09 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Proof that carrying a concealed weapon can also get your killed if you are not trained properly.

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-09 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Note to self...if I ever get a legal pistol, a CC permit, enter a WalMart for some strange reason, and it is invaded:
Snipe, not confront.
Ambush, not confront.

#4 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-09 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

This gun debate thing is sorta 'working itself out'.

#5 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-09 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Proof that carrying a concealed weapon can also get your killed if you are not trained properly."

Duh... that's obvious.

So can defending yourself with a chair or martial arts.

#7 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-09 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's why escape should be Plan-A. Only when you're out of options should you resort to Plan-B (hero).

#8 | Posted by Jay at 2014-06-09 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a shame Wilcox didn't consider the possibility there might be two gun wackos instead of one. Amanda Miller also killed the second cop while he confronted her husband.

I would've much preferred the story that Wilcox stopped the rampage.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

The only person that can stop a crazy person with a gun is an armed person crouched behind a Campbell ' s soup display.

---101---

#10 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-09 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

The shooters were confronted and killed themselves. Seems they always shoot themselves when someone stands up to them.

#11 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-09 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trained properly?

What kind of training would that be? Guerilla warfare? Police tactics? 2000 hrs playing duck hunter?

So, basically, it always comes down to the same thing. People should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public.

#12 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-09 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Had the CCW not confronted them I wonder how many people they would have went on to shoot.

Wilcox deserves praise instead of disdain being shown here. His action may have forced Amanda Miller to realize thier rampage was pointless and the public was capable of stopping them, hence ending it after shooting Wilcox.

#13 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-09 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

The shooters were confronted and killed themselves. Seems they always shoot themselves when someone stands up to them.

#11 | Posted by Sniper

yeah..well..except for that one guy who they killed when he "stood up to them".

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-09 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 & #2

One day somebody with a CCP might just save YOUR life..... then again maybe they won't,,,

,,,

#15 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2014-06-09 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

What kind of training would that be? Guerilla warfare? Police tactics? 2000 hrs playing duck hunter?

I think that was covered under the heading "a well regulated militia".

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-09 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

CCW permit holders don't know about the buddy system?
I'm not sure we can trust them with guns.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-09 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Had the CCW not confronted them I wonder how many people they would have went on to shoot.

The same number they confronted, likely. After he was killed, they barricaded themselves in the store. They didn't shoot at any shoppers, as far as I know. A shopper encountered them in an aisle and Jerad Miller didn't shoot him, but instead told him not to run.

Obviously Wilcox didn't know that when he acted, but suggesting he saved anybody's life appears to be inaccurate.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do NOT support gun rights because they make me, or anyone, 'safer' (although it can certainly be argued that responsible gun ownership does in fact make people 'overall' safer).

I support gun rights because it makes us FREER (yes, it is only one aspect of freedom, but a rather important one).

Even if gun rights PROVABLY made us LESS safe overall, I'd still support them.

The "freedom" and "Safe" aspects of ANY debate (NOT just the gun debate) are often confused and assumed to be related. They are NOT related.

On ANY issue, not just guns, more freedom does not equal more, or less, safety.
On ANY issue, not just guns, more safety does not equal more, or less, freedom.

Also, not every freedom vs. safety debate is equal. Going pro-freedom on one debate and pro-safety on another is sanity. The real debate is how frequently you lean to one side or the other.

(And there are other aspects too, like the brutal cold economics of a situation and how those affect people....).

#19 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-09 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

People should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public.

#12 | POSTED BY KUDZU AT 2014-06-09 04:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sure works in Liberal Detroit for the Gangs, they love the fact the public has been disarmed,,,
,,,

#21 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2014-06-09 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The guy was trying to help people. Crapping on him to make an anti-gun point comes across as pretty low class.

#23 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-09 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

"So, basically, it always comes down to the same thing. People should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public."

Dang near spit out my drink on that one. Yeah.. good thought there bucko. If we had THAT rule in place these shooters would have never killed the cops. Can't break a rule you know.

#24 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-09 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if gun rights PROVABLY made us LESS safe overall, I'd still support them.

So you'd rather live with more gun rights -- knowing it was more dangerous -- than to live more safely? That makes no sense. The only rationale for liberalizing gun rights is to make people more safe. If they make people less safe, they should be narrowed.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm going to wait for the official investigation to come out before I pass judgement. Just because the people there that saw it said he was shot, and that he confronted them, I'm going to wait until the army conducts it's...
Ah, who am I kidding with this investigation stuff? The Millers served with honor and distinction.

#26 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-09 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Even if gun rights PROVABLY made us LESS safe overall, I'd still support them.
#19 | Posted by USAF242

You understand why people think you're nuts, right?
Right??

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-09 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Worked for 6 months in County Jail as part of my CJ externship. We learned fast that when a gang member came in, and his rivals outnumbered him in Gen Pop, he was gonna sucker punch a CO after getting his scrubs and flip flops. Solitary confinement in any jail is probably the safest place in the world. But your freedoms are restricted to what the keyholder allows.

There has to be a balance between the two. Obviously "banning" something does not magically make banned item teleport to fairyland, populated by unicorns and plumdrop trees. But unrestricted access and proliferation do es not mean that every person will be responsible.

Theres a reason we have the share a penny dish at gas stations, but not a share a ben franklin dish.

#28 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-09 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

These 2 nutjobs openly discuss their plans to kill cops in front of their neighbors and no one thinks to report them? When someone states they plan to kill, they should be taken seriously.

#29 | Posted by tiger150 at 2014-06-09 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm just continually annoyed that the gun debate has been living 95% of its life in the 'safer' vs. 'less safe' debate.

It is NOT a single aspect debate. It has two huge aspects, not just one. Freedom and Safety. And I'd put the 'freedom' aspect as MORE significant, at least on guns (The 'freedom' aspect is NOT always the main aspect, but for guns it is).

Hell, its not even just two aspects, although the 'third aspect' is a distant third (I call the 'economic aspect' the 3rd one. Some might disagree....).

#30 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-09 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Even if gun rights PROVABLY made us LESS safe overall, I'd still support them.
#19 | Posted by USAF242"

I'm not sure I disagree. Cars probably provably make us less safe, but I still support having them around. They make us more free.

#31 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-09 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just goes to show how completely unpredictable these situations are. Then you add in the reality that few people have the minerals for this kind of chaos. Guns should be kept in homes unless the people are well trained law enforcement. These people were also bundy ranch mercenaries who also happened to be racist. I wonder if they voted GOP?

#32 | Posted by ron81 at 2014-06-09 04:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Cars probably provably make us less safe, but I still support having them around. They make us more free.

Cars serve an everyday purpose. They get us around in a spread-out, inadequate-mass-transit nation.

Guns are supposed to make us more safe. If they make us less safe, as USAF's hypothetical states, the rationale for putting millions of personal self-defense handguns in people's pants falls apart.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

RCade - they are supposed to make us more safe, AND they may be (and I repeat, MAY be) a (the only) check on unbridled government power.

#34 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-09 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

By the way, were the Millers members of the Cliven Bundy Gang?

#35 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-09 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

... AND they may be (and I repeat, MAY be) a (the only) check on unbridled government power.

The premise that we need a lot of guns so that millions of gun-owning Americans can someday rise up and overthrow their own government is a comic book fantasy.

If millions of Americans want to be a check on government power, they can accomplish that by voting and demonstrating in the streets.

Of course, that would require effort. It's easier to fantasize that amassing lots of guns makes you a future freedom fighter.

#36 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 05:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Crapping on him to make an anti-gun point comes across as pretty low class.

#23 | Posted by sully

Getting to and understanding the actual truth of the situation in no way demeans this man's actions.

He thought he was doing the right thing. Unfortunately, he was not completely situationally aware. His lack of training is what got him in trouble. His gun did not save him from his lack of training. That does not make him a bad guy. But, there are lessons to be learned here for all of us.

If we learn them then perhaps his death will not be in vain.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-09 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

A few thoughts...

1. There is a mental health problem in this country that keeps coming out in gun violence. It needs to be addressed. These 2 were clearly nuts. When you have a couple bat s@@t crazy radicalized white supremacists who want to kill people - there really isn't a way to stop them. Maybe if one of their neighbors would have reported them. Then again famously the police didn't stop another Elliot Rodger or Jeffery Dahmer - missed opportunities...

2. Where there is a will to get a gun there is a way. Look at the UK where gun violence is growing. Look at Chicago. These are not "Fast and Furious" guns.

3. The 50 year cycle of violence is approaching a peak. At least let us hope it is a peak.

4. Legalizing drugs like Marijuana will in the end take gun violence down several notches.

#38 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-06-09 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't much buy into the premise that millions of armed citizens rising up if needed is the main 'freedom' issue on guns (although it is certainly a small but significant part of it).

I'm more focused on the, mass of 'ornery armed citizen' who have NOT risen up because they were not provoked in the first place, aspect of the issue.

The mere existence of an ornery armed citizenry gives government pause. No mass rising is needed.

#39 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-09 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

4. Legalizing drugs like Marijuana will in the end take gun violence down several notches.
#38 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

In order to reduce black-market violence we'd have to legalize a lot more than just marijuana.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-09 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Voting and demonstrating works in an ideal society where principle and not party affiliation movitates the citizenry.

Mass protests during Dubyas reign over Iraq and the Patriot Act?
New President promises "Hope and Change" and instead expands the PA and wages new destabilizing wars, albiet without boots on the ground?
Where are the same protesters and demonstrators now?

The "Question Authority" crowd has morphed into the "How dare you question Authority" crowd.

#41 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-09 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Getting to and understanding the actual truth of the situation in no way demeans this man's actions.

He thought he was doing the right thing. Unfortunately, he was not completely situationally aware."

Regardless of whether he was trained or not, risking his life to try and help was admirable. If he didn't have a gun on him and tried to confront the gunman nobody would be talking about his lack of awareness. He would just be a hero who tried to help but failed.

I will admit though, after re-reading the thread, I think only #2 is out of line.

#42 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-09 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

These 2 were clearly nuts.

I don't see where they were clearly insane prior to this incident.

The 50 year cycle of violence is approaching a peak. At least let us hope it is a peak.

Actually, violent crime in this country has been declining for years, due possibly to the phaseout of environmental lead. Lead exposure in developing brains causes poor impulse control and a propensity for violence. The rise in mass shootings is a separate trend.

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 05:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Voting and demonstrating works in an ideal society where principle and not party affiliation movitates the citizenry.

If a citizenry can't be motivated to vote or demonstrate, why would you or anyone else think they could be motivated to take up arms against their government?

Americans will never revolt when there's something good to watch on TV.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The premise that we need a lot of guns so that millions of gun-owning Americans can someday rise up and overthrow their own government is a comic book fantasy."

I hope it never happens. I am very suspicious of people who seem to be eagerly hoping it will happen. They mostly seem like pretty bad people themselves.

But I wouldn't call it unrealistic at all. If our recent occupations have taught us anything it is that even the best army in the world can't control a hostile, armed populace.

And with NSA abuses coming to light and yet remaining unchecked, the wackos seem a little less crazy with each passing day.

#45 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trained properly?
What kind of training would that be? Guerilla warfare? Police tactics? 2000 hrs playing duck hunter?
So, basically, it always comes down to the same thing. People should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public.

I don;t think that you are correct in your last statement. You jump to mighty conclusion "People should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public." - that much is wrong. More training is necessary, situational awareness was necessary. Had the CCW holder known that the mans wife was there he may have opted to do something different.
But there are a lot of examples of people using a CCW to protect themselves and third persons from death. You would have them just die waiting for help?
That is just as bad as becoming involved when you should not be.

#46 | Posted by LouisS at 2014-06-09 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bread and Circuses. But armed revolution was probably not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Rather preventing one person from having absolute power and control, thus negating the need for armed revolution.

#47 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-09 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans will never revolt when there's something good to watch on TV.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is true.

But the people who are running things now are the most short sightedly greedy SOBs in the history of short sighted greediness. They may yet succeed in turning the US into a third world country.

Not saying its likely to happen, just that the possibility doesn't seem as impossible as it once did.

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

It is actually quite disgusting everyone crapping on this guy who tried to stop the nutjobs. Not even the cops have results that anyone was planning for it to end, even with all their extra training. So quit crapping on a person trying to do the right thing.

#49 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-06-09 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, because some heaps want to be told what to do and when to doit, the rest of us should just sit back and take it. You've convinced me, Rcade. Here are my guns.
Brilliant.

#50 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-09 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Snipe, not confront.

#51 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-09 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, because some heaps want to be told what to do and when to doit, the rest of us should just sit back and take it.

If you're doing something which requires guns and doesn't constitute sitting back and taking it, by all means let us know what that is. Don't be shy about your actions, revolution prepper.

Wolverines!

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

"the wackos seem a little less crazy with each passing day."

Maybe to you, sully .. but they are alternately scaring and cracking the rest of us up to an increasing degree. It is not my side which has to seek to "explain" , contextualize, or rationalize such tragedy.

I'm good with that.

.

#54 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-09 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But armed revolution was probably not the intent of the Founding Fathers.

#47 | POSTED BY AESCAL

Odd deduction given that they directly engaged in armed revolution.

#57 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-06-09 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Proof that carrying a concealed weapon can also get your killed if you are not trained properly."
Duh... that's obvious.
So can defending yourself with a chair or martial arts.
#7 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-09 03:53 PM

Which explains the wave of mass Isshinryu Karate killings we've had the last 20 years.

#58 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-06-09 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many white CCW holders have to die before something is done about gun control?

#59 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-09 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You people whining about preferring freedom are either cowards, liars or really really uninformed.

I suggest you go read the Patriot act, the homeland security act and any number of other laws passed in the last 10 years whose sole purpose was to strip you of rights and freedoms.

What you actually prefer is just talking about freedoms, because it is too dangerous to try to do anything about it.

#60 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-09 06:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#36 | Posted by rcade"

I tend to agree with you. (Though if no one had guns, mass demonstrations have a little less uumph.)

#61 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-09 06:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The mere existence of an ornery armed citizenry gives government pause. No mass rising is needed.
#39 | Posted by USAF242

Really?
When has it given Obama pause?
You're reading another page of the comic book RCade was talking about.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-09 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

One wonders if things would be different if the 9/11 attackers had simply spent their $500,000 on "assault weapons" and a few more assailants.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-09 06:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

they wanted to die in Wally World, how touching.

#64 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-06-09 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Having a gun doesn't make you a Saint or a Hero.

#65 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-06-09 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

if ppl decide to overthrow the gov, weaponry will manifest.

the udea that the gov is or will "hde" it all is the comic book fantasy. but again, as someine so rightly pointed out, ppl are lazy, addicted, and apathetic.

#66 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-06-09 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Simple solution. Create a bomb that makes all guns disappear. Instantly problem solved. No one will get shot.

Of course those bent on destruction will use other things. Knives, bombs, broken glass bottles, cars, gasoline...

#67 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-09 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

hde = hide

#68 | Posted by ichiro at 2014-06-09 06:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

If millions of Americans want to be a check on government power, they can accomplish that by voting and demonstrating in the streets.

That worked out well in that square in China, didn't it?

One reason Japan didn't invade us was because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass"

- A Japanese General

#69 | Posted by boaz at 2014-06-09 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

More people will die in Chicago on almost any given weekend than in all the mass shootings over the entire country this year. In the end both sides should have the same focus, to reduce gun deaths, and agree on that point. Arming kids is about as likely to stop gun deaths as plastering "Gun Free Zone" signs over an entire state. Law abiding citizens should not be the focus of left, nor should weapons that comprise less than 5% of gun deaths. On the other side reforms have to be made to prevent mentally ill from accessing guns, as well as education and responsibility when owning / carrying.

On side note, some Democratic Senators speak out against the White House barring import of M1 Garands. ? As if Garands arent the truest display of Freedom and Americana.

www.wcax.com

#70 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-09 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe to you, sully .. but they are alternately scaring and cracking the rest of us up to an increasing degree. It is not my side which has to seek to "explain" , contextualize, or rationalize such tragedy.

I'm good with that..

#54 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-09 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gee, that's awfully brave of you taking a stand against tweekers who murder cops.

Who do you actually think is not on your "side" on that one? I haven't seen one person try to rationalize this tragedy.

But I've now seen one person use it to grandstand.

#71 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-09 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"- A Japanese General"

A loser.

#72 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-09 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

Obviously Wilcox didn't know that when he acted, but suggesting he saved anybody's life appears to be inaccurate.

----

What about this part?

Armed with "hundreds of rounds of ammunition" in one backpack alone, police said the twisted couple then marched across the street to a Walmart as though "ready for a lengthy gun battle."

There Jerad "told people to get out and that this is a revolution and that the police are on the way," said McMahill.

They wanted to shoot at many cops as they could. The CCW holder might have prevented some cop's death. That's obviously speculation but I don't think it's wild speculation.

#73 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-06-09 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

That worked out well in that square in China, didn't it?

If he had a gun that day I am pretty sure it would not have ended well for that guy standing in front of that tank in Tiananmen Square.

For as we all know...

The only way to stop a bad guy with a tank is a good guy with a tank.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-09 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"They wanted to shoot at many cops as they could."

Make you wonder why they gave up as soon as they got in a gunfight with the police. Although the BBC is reporting she might have been hit by a police bullet before she shot her husband and herself.

#75 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-09 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

1) The news story reports quite clearly that the shooters publicly threatened to carry out the rampage. Yet no one reported them. This may very well be because Nevada citizens are wanting as little contact with the police as possible, and for good reason.

"We don't necessarily believe that [the shooters] were white supremacists," [neighbor] said. Instead, "they believed that law enforcement is the oppressor" -- like Nazis."

2) This first statement is patently false. Daily Kos editorial "Getting Right Down to the Pure Essense of the Gun Movement" :

kos.salsalabs.com

Nearly all [demonstrators] were white. [Open Carry Tarrant] Participant Mark Thompson offered an explanation: Black people, he said, "are afraid to carry rifles because they're afraid of being shot by police." This is what it's always been about from the very beginning of the 'gun rights' movement. It's about white supremacy, pure and simple. (opines brooklynbadboy ~ Daily Kos concurs)

OK, i admit it. Although i support gun ownership, but do not myself own one, i am a White Supremacist. All non-Whites should leave America now. Since i'm gay i'll leave, too.

#76 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-09 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Americans and there guns. I will never understand how America can feel impowered to lecture the rest of the world about being civilized when America is bloodier than any other country in the world.

#77 | Posted by allahakbar at 2014-06-09 07:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

IRC chatter is stating that the couple placed swatzikas on the officers bodies becuase they viewed them as Nazis for having arrested the couple for pot offenses....

Interestingly enough, the worst massacre our own government has committed started over gun confiscation (Massacre at Wounded Knee), if that sets a precedent for Diane "Take em all away except mine" Fienstiens proposed future gun confiscations.

#78 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-09 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#76 ~ belonged in THIS IS THE REVOLUTION !!! thread, but i won't re-post it.

This news story in BANNER HEADLINE makes the point concealed weapon carriers are worthless & incompetent, if not dangerous. So, dear CCW Holder, Thanks For Nothing.

#79 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-09 07:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

What, were you in WalMart buying loafers?

#80 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-06-09 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans will never revolt when there's something good to watch on TV.

That's true. When's the last time you saw enough Americans assemble to actually effectuate a change in policy?

#81 | Posted by JOE at 2014-06-09 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...makes the point concealed weapon carriers are worthless & incompetent, if not dangerous."

That's silly. If this guy had not been outnumbered he might have been able to shoot the other guy. In this case it would not have made any difference because they were done with their part in the shootings by then anyway.

It does detract from the argument that "gun free zones" are more of a hazard than "gun zones".

This was not a gun free zone and people were shot anyway.

#82 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-09 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

They wanted to shoot at many cops as they could. The CCW holder might have prevented some cop's death.

He got killed without firing a shot, sadly. We know he didn't end up saving anybody. Amanda ended up saving any more cops' lives by killing Jerad and herself.

#83 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

When's the last time you saw enough Americans assemble to actually effectuate a change in policy?

Americans marched in huge numbers against the Iraq war and against Wall Street corruption. Didn't make much of a difference either way.

Any American who thinks a revolution is coming should be looking at ballots instead of bullets. We're not China. We could elect a radical reformer from inside or outside the parties if we wanted massive change in Washington. We don't need guns for that.

#84 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-09 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ballot or the bullet

www.youtube.com

#85 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-09 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans can effect change with money. Nothing else works. Nothing.

#86 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-06-09 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those with the most money don't want change.

#87 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-09 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Officer #1 caught by surprise of shooter #1. Dead.
Officer #2 caught by surprise of shooter #2. Dead.
CCW caught by surprise of shooter #2. Dead.

Sometimes no level of training makes the good guys win.
Sometimes the bad guys just win.

#88 | Posted by techres at 2014-06-09 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#88 | Posted by techres

Good thoughts. Shooter #1 might have also been caught by surprise by Shooter #2.

She sounds like the really crazy one.

#89 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-09 09:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We're not China. We could elect a radical reformer...if we wanted massive change in Washington. We don't need guns for that."

There is no WE (except in an abstract sense).There is only US & THEM.
An elected radical reformer wouldn't survive in the implausible event she* prevailed.
(*PC, not a reference to Corporatist Clinton.)

#90 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-09 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Officer #1 caught by surprise of shooter #1. Dead.
Officer #2 caught by surprise of shooter #2. Dead.
CCW caught by surprise of shooter #2. Dead.

Sometimes no level of training makes the good guys win.
Sometimes the bad guys just win.

#88 | Posted by techres

Agreed, yet it is disgusting people are bad mouthing the CCW shooter who was surprised by the second shooter just as the officers were and it is some how proof that CCW can't make a difference. Yet I don't see them bashing the cops for being surprised by these sickos. Both the right and the lift are so polarized that instead of recognizing that all three made a effort to try and stop these nut job, they rather instead make jokes. The officers and the Conceal carrier are heroes in my book, hell it takes a lot of guts to make a stand and put your life on the line. If all he did was distract those nut jobs enough so people could make it to safety, hell at lest he made a attempt. There isn't a whole lot of people who are willing to risk their lives for others they do not know, yet there are plenty of armchair commandos who feel the need to bash someone when they themselves wouldn't have don't SH%&. To claim his actions made no difference is like saying that soldier who is willing attracting gun fire in his direction so he buddies could get closer to the enemies makes no difference because his rounds didn't kill them is BS. If you have never been in a fire fight then you are quiet clueless, shootings are extremely fluid events where nothing is ever certain and it only takes a nano second to make choices that either will kill you or save you. Shooting no matter what training you have is a fu%^ing crap shoot.

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure -- and in some cases I have -- that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy." JEFF COOPER

#91 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-06-09 10:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Sure works in Liberal Detroit for the Gangs, they love the fact the public has been disarmed,,,
,,,

#21 | Posted by ATaxpayer

Most of the shootings in Detroit (or any area for that matter)are either gang or family related. You seem to have as firm a grip on reality as the shooters. As big news as spree shooters are, most shootings (apologies to the gunnuts for using that word)are done by people who know their victims.

According to the impeccable logic of the NRA, this guy was clearly not enough of a "good man".

#92 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-06-09 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

According to the impeccable logic of the NRA, this guy was clearly not enough of a "good man".

#92 | Posted by northguy3
Hell I don't know anyone would who think he was a good man. Now I am not a huge fan of the NRA on the majority of their hollow points because they have a extremely long history of supporting over the top gun control. Yet on your point its hard to believe anyone with some logic would disagree he was not a bad man as well as a felon. As to make a point on the moron NRA they come out and spout how much the gun free zones are so pointless today which they are, yet I can recall them fully backing the law as perfect fix to crazy's. They flip flop and will back what ever makes them more money.

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."

-- NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress

#93 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-06-09 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Housekeeping...Cleanup in Aisle 7....

#95 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-10 02:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#82 ~ "...makes the point concealed weapon carriers are worthless & incompetent,
if not dangerous." "That's silly...."

i was stating MY impression of the banner headline, given that RCADE gives the impression he is ready for every American citizen to surrender their guns. (if this is simplistic or inaccurate, my sincere apologies.) It is not my opinion "concealed weapon carriers are [necessarily] worthless & incompetent, if not dangerous."

Any CCW HOLDER should be free from road rage issues, mentally sound, and never impaired by alcohol or drugs while carrying. Not sure how well the "mentally sound" part is determined and enforced. (Again, i don't own a firearm.) It is obvious these two individuals were not stable & were possibly impaired, given their rage over a marijuana arrest (whether said arrest was justified being a moot point).

#96 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-10 03:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

... given that RCADE gives the impression he is ready for every American citizen to surrender their guns ...

I've said many times here I support the right of Americans to own guns for personal protection at home. The headline is a simple fact: A CCW holder died confronting the shooters.

#97 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 07:52 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Some of you are only capable of baby-pool-deep thought.

The argument about armed revolution to check the government's power is a false argument. Yes, there will never again be an organized civilian armed uprising. And, yes, the knowledge of armed citizens and lack of quantification of same DOES give the gov't pause, and prevents unchecked power.

But the real reason it makes us safer and freer, is that if the gov't, or any foreign army, or self-proclaimed authority goes to far, our revolution is simple. We sit at home. We exercise CIVIL disobedience. We disavow the authority. We thumb our noses at them. And we do everything we can to disrupt their plans in a civil fashion. Then, when they have had enough, and decide they will now come and force our compliance/submission.. guess what happens next. One at a time, little by little.. we win.

Scoff all you want. They cannot win that battle, I don't care how well armed they are.

#98 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 08:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

#23 Sully. The guy was trying to help people. Crapping on him to make an anti-gun point comes across as pretty low class.

But hasn't that become typical deception of the Rahm Emanuel disciples who will attempt to use any tragic situation for political advantage?

#99 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-10 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

A CCW holder died confronting the shooters.

#97 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 07:52 AM | Reply | Flag

How many factual headlines would we see (i.e. 1000s of gang bankers/criminals kill unarmed victims) if the consolidated media was informative and objective, instead of an absolute arm of the Misinformation Propagandists of America?

#100 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-10 08:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Right. Not to mention rampage killings are nothing new at all, nor are they more violent or more destructive than they were a century ago. They are just framed for us now.

#101 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not to mention rampage killings are nothing new at all, nor are they more violent or more destructive than they were a century ago.

Prove it. Show us links about the rash of spree killings in 1900 to 1920.

#102 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

[...] Firstly, I notice you didn't include the late 1920's in your span, when there is plenty of readily available proof of the rampant mafia killings all over this country.

Secondly, my point was that we didn't hear about them.. didn't have them shoved in our faces every time some loose cannon went off. Actually, the opposite was true, and the reporting was subdued, as a matter of taste and so as to not stir unrest.

Furthermore, you may not be aware of this, but the Internet wasn't around back then, so links may be hard to come by. Microfiche, maybe.

Bonus challenge - *You* show *me* the hard evidence (translation - not Huffpo) that there has been an increase in gun related murder over the *entire* last century. Of course, you would attempt to show raw numbers if I didn't preemptively qualify that this must be a percentage increase based on population, per-capita, etc.. so, there, I stated it.

If you go to that trouble and succeed, then I will consider wasting my time doing the research for you to prove that what I said is true.

Rhetorical answer - You can't, because there hasn't been an increase, but rather, a decrease. [...]

#103 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's a rubber ducky for you to play with

marginalrevolution.com

#104 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you have never been in a fire fight then you are quiet clueless, shootings are extremely fluid events where nothing is ever certain and it only takes a nano second to make choices that either will kill you or save you. Shooting no matter what training you have is a fu%^ing crap shoot.

You have made a very compelling argument as to why the vast majority of people should not be armed. Police, who are required to get certified frequently, often screw things up. Soldiers killed via friendly fire also happens. If these two populations of people sometimes get it wrong, isn't it reasonable to assume that people that don't have the same degree of training are likely to get it wrong more frequently?

#105 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-06-10 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Firstly, I notice you didn't include the late 1920's in your span ...

I left out the 20s because you said "a century ago," and 1900 to 1920 seemed like a fair range to prove your point.

Secondly, my point was that we didn't hear about them. ... Actually, the opposite was true, and the reporting was subdued, as a matter of taste and so as to not stir unrest.

So your proof is that they occurred but we didn't hear about them, and newspapers back then only reported them in a subdued manner? Classic. A century ago our newspapers were in the yellow journalism era, which was infamous for extreme sensationalism. The idea that spree killings were going on back then and the papers were "subdued" about reporting it is spectacularly absurd. William Randolph Hearst didn't do subdued.

Your premise that spree killings were more common in the past is dead wrong. That's why you responded with excuses instead of evidence.

#106 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Here's a rubber ducky for you to play with ...

You didn't say that homicide was going down, you said "rampage killings" were. Stick to the subject.

#107 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I never strayed from the subject. Those were the quickest numbers I could find to prove a point to you [...].

Compare the Mafia era to today. Dramatic decrease in rampage killings, yet far more effective weaponry available today.

Also note, that the media-framed-panic-propaganda effect I mentioned has been de-cloaked time and again by people who actually think independently.

For example, to borrow a comment from the link I posted...

Here is Richard Whately (1831) on change in media exposure misleading our impressions about crime trends:
"It should be observed also, that in large towns, and in populous districts intersected by roads which furnish a rapid conveyance of intelligence from place to place, and where newspapers are in common use, much more in proportion is known of every enormity that is perpetrated, than in remote country-districts, thinly peopled, where there is less facility of mutual communication, and where the natural appetite for news is compelled to limit itself to the gossip of the nearest hamlet. Much apparent increase of crime (I will not undertake to say how much) consists, I am convinced, in the increase of newspapers. For crimes, especially (be it observed) such as are the most remote from the experience of each individual, and therefore strike him as something strange, always furnish interesting articles of intelligence. I have no doubt that a single murder in Great Britain has often furnished matter for discourse to more than twenty times as many persons as any twenty such murders would in Turkey. We should remember, that there are not more particles of dust in the sunbeam than in any other part of the room; though we see them more where the light is stronger."

That is from Introductory Lecturers on Poltical Economy, which contains many remarkable passages. Available at the Online Library of Liberty.

So, RCADE, are you saying that these things I've stated are false? I'd love to hear your counter-argument rather than the typical non sequitur. [...]

#108 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

The point I make about the conveyance of information through the media regarding these events is very important.

It shows that it is very understandable that many many people are misled into believing that we are experiencing some sort of epidemic when it comes to these rampages, and just *sick* human behavior in general.

We're not. We're just watching it all on TV now in quasi-real-time.

Child abduction is another one that can completely give people the mistaken impression that our children live in a far more dangerous environment now, than in the past. The Amber Alert (which is fantastic of course), and the media lust for these stories, has given a completely false impression.

Our children are safer now than 50 years ago, by an order of magnitude. But you wouldn't think it after watching the news. I suppose you'll want proof of that too, but I think I'll let you find it yourself.

#109 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your premise that spree killings were more common in the past is dead wrong. That's why you responded with excuses instead of evidence.

Rcade, you're killin me man.. I could pose the exact same challenge to you. Prove to me that, of the immensely larger number of homicides that took place back then (which I have proven), that there were fewer (%) that were a result of senseless rampage/mental illness, anger at society, etc.. You're trying to group these incidences into a category that you somehow are at liberty to define.

All I'm saying, is that senseless killing is nothing new. And it has decreased dramatically, despite the dramatic increase in effective weaponry.

Neither one of us has the means to meet the other's request. So,

With the number of per-capita murders cut in half in the last hundred years, what's more likely? More senseless killing due to various factors (above) going on now, or back then?

#110 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

We all San Paku. They no possibility of civilized society here.

#111 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-10 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I could pose the exact same challenge to you.

You made a factual assertion about spree killings, I challenged you to prove it. If you define a mass shooting as one that took the lives at least four people in a single incident or a series of incidents over a short period of time -- which is how the FBI defines the term -- there were at least 70 such incidents in the U.S. from 1982 to 2012:

www.motherjones.com

By comparison, there were 10 from 1882 to 1912:

en.wikipedia.org

The premise that we didn't know about these killings 100 years ago ignores the fact that newspapers had wide circulation in those days and were widely read. The media back then had as much interest in reporting lurid and sensational crimes as it does today.

All I'm saying, is that senseless killing is nothing new.

Killing is not new. The magnitude and frequency of mass shootings is new. The trend is obvious, and it isn't just media hype.

#112 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

How careless of you. Your statement is completely false based on your reference. That chart at the bottom is exactly what we are looking for. The proof of the trend.

Have another look, and then you should graciously concede. I promise I won't gloat.

en.wikipedia.org(incidence_and_victim_numbers)
.png

Note the peak of "Magnitude" (i.e. #casualties) in 1920. Note the trend, a decrease in "magnitude".

Frequency went up, but this is not a per-capita figure. It is a raw number, and the raw increase in population explains it.

And, from the tables above, note that..

Not included are school massacres, workplace killings, hate crimes or familicides, which form their own categories.

How convenient, for the authors of that page to pigeonhole uh, "rampage" killings to produce the desired trend.

#113 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"en.wikipedia.org(incidence_and_victim_numbers)
.png"

Sorry, the () parens messed up the link. I'm trying to direct you to the line-graph link in center of the group of graphs at the bottom.

#114 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

You misread the chart. The line you are referring to (the blue one) displays the average casualty count per decade, not the number of incidents per decade.

Also, the 70 vs. 10 figure I cited was confined to the United States. The chart is global.

#115 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

You made a factual assertion about spree killings,

This was my statement

Right. Not to mention rampage killings are nothing new at all, nor are they more violent or more destructive than they were a century ago. They are just framed for us now.

Now you've spent an hour trying to clarify my use of the word 'rampage'. I apologize for not realizing the uh, 'experts' at Wikipedia have a PhD in semantics, but I was basically referring to insane idiots (motive or no motive) picking up a gun and killing a bunch of people, which is in context, as it was a follow up to your discussion with another poster about gun control.

The gun control camp has been loudly making the case that somehow the reason for these recent incidences are the guns themselves. It's an extremely weak argument, imho, based on my experience and knowledge of human behavior and history. We could go on for days and show that gun control does not produce a reduction in gun crime. Chicago, Central America, the list is endless and the facts are right in front of you. You seem to only cherry pick the facts that support your 'beliefs'.

#116 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

You misread the chart.

No, you misread my statement. The blue line represents the magnitude (your word) of the events (i.e. the casualty toll). As I stated, the number of incidences is not relevant, because it does not take population growth into account. If those incidence numbers (on the X axis) were stated as percentages, or per-capita rates, then they would be significant.

#117 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The blue line represents the magnitude (your word) of the events (i.e. the casualty toll).

No, the blue line represents the average number of casualties per incident. Look at the bottom of that chart:

1900s: 7 cases
1910s: 5 cases
1920s: 6 cases
1930s: 5 cases
1940s: 4 cases
1950s: 1 case
1960s: 7 cases
1970s: 15 cases
1980s: 20 cases
1990s: 18 cases
2000s: 25 cases

That chart shows there are more mass killings today than a century ago. You can write it all off to population increase if you like -- I'm sure you will -- but I think the increase in number is meaningful regardless.

I think society has an obvious and compelling need to reduce the number of these killings by making it harder for the killers to obtain the weapon type they overwhelmingly choose to carry out their massacres -- guns.

It should not inconvenience you in the slightest to make it harder for the mentally ill to obtain guns, or for police to be able to find out someone has been amassing guns when they are called out to a mental welfare check on that person. Since you're not mentally ill, these precautionary measures ought to be a concession you're willing to support.

#118 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

While we were debating whether this trend is real, an active shooting was reported at a high school in Oregon.

#119 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

The trend is exponential now

#120 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-10 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think society has an obvious and compelling need to reduce the number of these killings by making it harder for the killers to obtain the weapon type they overwhelmingly choose to carry out their massacres -- guns.

It won't reduce the killings. There is factual evidence the world over that proves it. I mean, how can you just ignore the Chicago, D.C. experiments? It's disingenuous. Furthermore, the unacceptable cost of this policy is that it becomes harder for *everyone* to obtain guns, including me. I cannot support that, especially when I have zero confidence that the powers that be have altruistic motives.

It should not inconvenience you in the slightest to make it harder for the mentally ill to obtain guns, or for police to be able to find out someone has been amassing guns when they are called out to a mental welfare check on that person. Since you're not mentally ill, these precautionary measures ought to be a concession you're willing to support.

SHOULD being the key word there. Again based on history, empirical evidence, a vote of no confidence for those who would define mental illness. Already they confiscate people's guns based on questionable characterizations. Give them an inch, and next thing you know, writing a defiant blog post will be classified as mental illness. So, yes I believe it will inconvenience me greatly, and I'm being sincere. Will not trade freedom for safety. My reasons for wanting my fellow American to own firearms (and ammo) are far too important. (see post #98.

Lastly, I feel it is absolutely none of anyone's business, especially the gov't, what legal possessions I own. Period. Especially my arms.

#121 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 12:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

While we were debating whether this trend is real, an active shooting was reported at a high school in Oregon.

IIRC, approximately 300 people are shot per day in the U.S. You see what you just did there. You cited 0.3% of a phenomenon that happens every day, and has happened everyday for centuries, at a decreasing rate over time thanks to improved education and civilization, and called it a trend. It's bogus.

We will obviously stand on two separate sides of this issue. I think your stance makes the oft-repeated error of assuming these policies can or will be implemented properly, and your trust in the benevolence of those pushing this policies is misplaced. I firmly believe they will not be implemented properly, because I firmly believe the motives to be about something completely different than you. Not about saving lives, but about power (not your motives, necessarily, but the authorities').

#122 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ooh you just made the list

#123 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-10 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Firstly, I notice you didn't include the late 1920's in your span, when there is plenty of readily available proof of the rampant mafia killings all over this country.
#103 | Posted by TuffLuv"

You're equating Mafia killings to the frequent random mass shootings happening today?

#124 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2014-06-10 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The shooters were confronted and killed themselves. Seems they always shoot themselves when someone stands up to them."

To point out the glaringly obvious; the premise that people need guns to be safe from violent crime has been undermined because if this guy didn't have a gun, he would still be alive.

"Had the CCW not confronted them I wonder how many people they would have went on to shoot."

The fact that they didn't shoot anyone else negates the opinion that his CCW permit did anything other than get himself shot.

#125 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-06-10 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I'm saying random mass shootings have always happened. As have other mass killings. The mafia is just one big example. It is perfectly relevant. They were deranged individuals, with no concern for the innocent and un-involved. Completely narcissistic nihilists spraying bullets. Many of them enjoyed killing. Many of them were mentally ill, because they were indoctrinated into a lifestyle of killing.

But they were by no means the only 'rampagers'. Again, if some small town nut in ohio shot five people on a June day in 1923.. there was probably very little chance that you'd hear about it in California, despite what RCADE says. And even if it did make your local paper, you probably weren't too overly concerned with what happened in Lodi Ohio.

#126 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

In other words, you are all suckers for the media hype surrounding these current killings. They are nothing new. The only things new are the level of sensationalism attached to these events, the society's apparent obsession with them, and the completely failed group-think non-logic that many believe they can somehow be stopped.

Again, 300 people will be shot today. But somehow this shooting in Vegas is special. It's part of some new epidemic that we must address, now, now, now!

FAIL.

#127 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mass murders are common and acceptable?

Someone is running out of crap to say.

#128 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-10 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're equating Mafia killings to the frequent random mass shootings happening today?

I thought that was a ridiculous comparison too. A Mafia killing in the 1920s would be better compared to gang members shooting each other today.

Most Americans care less about that violence because it's far removed from us. Most of us don't have the misfortune to live in neighborhood where that is occurring. Spree killers attacking colleges, malls, movie theaters and public schools are closer to us.

I think most Americans are ready for stronger laws to deter the mentally ill from obtaining firearms and would allow police much greater knowledge when a nut case has been amassing them.

#129 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Mass murders are common and acceptable? Someone is running out of crap to say.

Sometimes the best advertisement for reasonable gun control is to let a gun-rights extremist talk.

#130 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-10 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#129 Most Americans care less about that violence because it's far removed from us. Most of us don't have the misfortune to live in neighborhood where that is occurring. Spree killers attacking colleges, malls, movie theaters and public schools are closer to us.

Let's be honest. "Most Americans" are neither represented in the media, nor are they appropriately represented in government, nor for that matter on the US Supreme Court.

Those that are over represented show their colors of bigotry because they are actually not concerned about gun violence in the USA for those that are most affected. They are many steps above it on that ladder of privilege. Gun violence against the upper classes is highly remote except when one of their own goes off their meds and deep end in their private play land. They are not concerned with most of the crime related shootings in the USA because they are not only racial bigots but economical ones too. You are correct they are too many steps removed on the ladder of privilege to even worry about it except when it comes to them.

#131 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-10 03:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think most Americans are ready for stronger laws to deter the mentally ill from obtaining firearms and would allow police much greater knowledge when a nut case has been amassing them.

Well, you'd be wrong again. Most leftist Americans who are regulars on this blog, maybe. All 10 of you.

#132 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gun violence against the upper classes is highly remote..

Because they are armed, secured, and intent on protecting themselves, their loved ones, and their property. Go ahead, call that bigoted all day long.. whatev.

#133 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#133 | POSTED BY TUFFLUV

That's bigoted.

#134 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-06-10 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hey RCADE.. How come ROBSON can say this:

They are not concerned with most of the crime related shootings in the USA because they are not only racial bigots but economical ones too.

..disparaging false generalizations, but when I call you uneducated, you alter my comments?

#135 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rcade.. RSYTBEACH just called me a bigot. I said nothing bigoted, whatsoever. Are you going to edit his comments like you did mine? At least mine were accurate.

#136 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I think most Americans are ready for stronger laws to deter the mentally ill from obtaining firearms"

I didn't know liberals had firearms.

#137 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-10 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Mental balance is reflected in the eyes

www.google.com

I'm sure that all sanpaku are not about to kill, but there is too much correlation to ignore.

#138 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-10 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Could we deny this dude a firearm based on his eyes?

www.huffingtonpost.com

#139 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-10 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wait this one is better-

www.google.com

Can we not scientifically key on some of these facial features?

#140 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-10 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The mere existence of an ornery armed citizenry gives government pause. No mass rising is needed.

#39 | Posted by USAF242

I like the way you said that. An "ornery armed citizenry" serves as a major political and most importantly a peaceful deterrent to those few whom if given the opportunity might be ambitious enough to take the next step, and turn up the heat on the frogs in the pot.

The purpose of an armed citizenry is to prevent both anarchy and tyranny. It isn't about a choice as neither is acceptable. It is about keeping our politicians and those who control them, from ever crossing that red line which objective honest historians call tyranny.

#141 | Posted by Robson at 2014-06-10 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

#97 ~ "I've said many times here I support the right of Americans to own guns for personal protection at home. The headline is a simple fact: A CCW holder died confronting the shooters."

i appreciate that clarification. You remember, however the SCOTUS judge (Scala?) who wrote that the 2nd amendment could or should be re-written to stipulate only official (government approved) militias could have guns (for use in approved emergencies one assumes), not citizens.

What is your stance on concealed carry, i wonder. You've no doubt stated that.

#112 ~ "Killing is not new. The magnitude and frequency of mass shootings is new. The trend is obvious, and it isn't just media hype."

Do you accept or reject that some of these shootings are or could be false flag events? Or do you believe our government is benignant and would never & has never perpetrated a false flag event?

#142 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-10 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't matter KENX. His statements are mostly false, anyway. The magnitude (death toll) from these type of incidences has decreased steadily over time, even as firepower has dramatically increased. Rcade is bent on convincing everyone his contrived ideological arguments are valid by repeating them ad nauseam. They are anything but. Oh, and by modifying or removing any comment that discredits him properly.

#143 | Posted by TuffLuv at 2014-06-10 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

#143 ~ He has closed threads that i took in a direction of which he didn't approve, recently.
i do acknowledge his right to do so (regardless of efficacy) and if i'm provocative, wish to keep that to a minimum. This is a unique board & i appreciate RCADE's efforts tho we often differ.

#144 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-10 07:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sometimes the best advertisement for reasonable gun control is to let a gun-rights extremist talk.

Why "chicken little" squawks from journalists and media fail. Mostly, lack of facts.

Abstract:
The pattern is a painfully familiar one. A gunman opens fire in a public place, killing many innocent victims. After this tragedy, support for gun control surges. With a closing window for reform, politicians and activists quickly push for new gun laws. But as time elapses, support decreases. Soon enough, the passions fade, and society returns to the status quo.

We call this paradigm "the shooting cycle." This article provides the first qualitative and quantitative analysis of the shooting cycle, and explains how and why people and governments react to mass shootings.

This article proceeds in five parts. First, we bring empirical clarity to the debate over mass shootings, and show that contrary to popular opinion, they are fairly rare, and are not occurring more frequently. Second, relying on cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic, substitution effect, and cultural cognition theory, we demonstrate why the perception of risk and reaction to these rare and unfamiliar events are heightened. Third we chronicle the various stages of the shooting cycle: tragedy, introspection, action, divergence, and return to the status quo. During the earlier stages, emotional capture sets in, allowing politicians and activists to garner support for reform. But, after the spike, soon support for reform fades, and regresses to the mean. Fifth, with this framework, we view the year following the horrific massacre in Newtown through the lens of the shooting cycle. We conclude by addressing whether the shooting cycle can be broken. papers.ssrn.com

#145 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-10 08:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The authors' conclusion.

Our goals for this article were modest. First, we aimed to bring some definitional and empirical clarity to the debate over mass shootings. In short, these tragedies are very rare, constitute a tiny sliver of gun deaths, and are not happening more frequently. Second, we ventured to offer several explanations as to why these rare deaths receive such heightened scrutiny in our society. Due to behavioral heuristics and innate cognitive biases, we tend to overweigh the risk of rare and unfamiliar events, especially when the impact of these events jibes with our cultural predispositions and affects those who are similar to us.

Third, we chronicled the various stages of the shooting cycle: tragedy, introspection, action, divergence, and return to the status quo. Fourth, we explained how concepts like emotional capture and regression to the mean illustrate why support for stricter gun control spikes after a mass shooting but fades naturally with time. Fifth, we documented the shooting cycle in the year after the horrific massacre in Newtown. During this time, as support for gun control waned, opposition to gun control waxed. This regression to the mean helps explain, in part, the defeat of the proposed federal gun-control legislation.

Emotional fervor after a tragedy causes sudden spikes in support of legislative responses to the event. Politicians and activists try to move as quickly as possible during this period of emotional capture, as time is of the essence. With time, however, sentiments fade, and society regresses to the mean, making it much more difficult to pass new laws, as there is a decreasing mean. We suspect this cycle applies to many other contexts outside of gun control.

This leaves us with a question we do not answer: can this cycle be broken? In other words, is it possible for support of gun-control laws among Americans to remain high enough, not just to pass something four months later, but to make Americans appreciate the law for years to come? Breaking the cycle will require a significant cultural shift. Only time will tell if this is possible.

#146 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-10 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

The emphasis i took from et al's (copied) analysis, to break the shooting cycle is to actuate gun control, presumedly by initiating more effective mental health profiles of who should not be owning guns. The tea party seems suspicious of an unbiased standard and method of identifying mental incompetents, that the government actually has the goal of suppressing if not eliminating private gun ownership by hunters, those concerned for their families' safety, and 2nd amendment activists. Governments do not historically have the most trustworthy track records.

This couple are "poster children" of all the types the government seems concerned about, not the least being the broadcasting of anti-government sentiments.

A neighbor expressed concern this couple exhibited traits of meth use. If that was accurate, we need look no further for an explanation. Their political views are not pertinent.

#147 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-11 03:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort