Multiple people shot near Empire State building in Manhattan, police say
FoxNews.com
DEVELOPING: Multiple people were shot Friday near the Empire State building in Manhattan, the New York City Police Department confirmed to FoxNews.com.
Authorities said at least three or four victims have been wounded in the shooting and that the gunman is dead. It is not clear if the gunman shot himself or was shot by someone else.
A fire department spokesman said it received a call about the shooting just after at 9 a.m. Friday and that emergency units were on the scene within minutes.
The spokesman had no information about how many people were wounded or their conditions.
The shooting occurred at 34th Street and Fifth Avenue.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/24/multiple-people-shot-near-empire-state-building-in-manhattan-police-say/#ixzz24TJ12mZs
10 reported shot in front of Empire State Building
[Updated at 9:55 a.m. ET] - At least 10 people were shot Friday in front of the Empire State Building in New York Friday morning, the New York Office of Emergency Management said.
A suspect in the shooting was shot and killed by police, New York police said.
Authorities converged on the building around 9 a.m. after reports of gunfire.
A witness told CNN's Rose Arce that the gunman ran after and shot a man in the head. An unarmed guard chased the gunman away, the witness told Arce.
Police have closed several several streets around 5th Avenue and 34th Street in Manhattan.
New York resident Max Kaplan, 22, said he heard at least nine gunshots. He said several ambulances have arrived at the scene.
"We're all very shaken up at the office," he said.
The Empire State Building is one of the most famous skyscrapers in the world, and one of New York City's best-known tourist attractions.
Each year, about 4 million people visit the building's two observation decks. At more than 1,453 feet tall, the landmark building reaches more than a quarter-mile into the sky.
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 10:28:21 AM
Ock, would you say that logistically speaking it would have been better if this guy had been armed with a rock?
Was he behind the victims? Were they blindfolded? Did he lock them into a confined space? Was his gun a single shot? How many bullets did he have with him? How many rocks did he have stored up?
Another dumb question Stephen, asking that which can't be intelligently answered to provoke an argument?
It's not a subject that generally interests me so I won't waste my time, however, needless to say, he was a law abiding gun owner who took the time to register his weapon and follow the city's gun laws.
QuoteNo permit is required for the purchase of a rifle or shotgun (except in New York City).
A license to carry or posses a pistol or revolver is required to purchase a handgun. (See HANDGUNSPOSSESSION and CARRY) Elsewhere than the City of New York, a person licensed to carry or possess a pistol or revolver may apply at any time to the licensing officer in the county of their residence for amendment of his or her license to include one or more such handguns or to cancel a handgun held under the license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
QuoteNew York is one of the strictest states in the nation with regards to the purchase, possession and carrying of handguns.[1] Most of New York State gun laws are covered in two sections of New York Penal law: article 265 - Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons; and article 400 - Licensing and Other Provisions Relating to Firearms. These sections include the banning of possession of a handgun, exemptions to the handgun ban, including to those who have a license to carry, possess, hunt with and target shoot, repair, and dispose of firearms.
Another liberal gone wacko.
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 10:28:21 AM
WNBC's Jonathan Dienst: Disgruntled employee, had just been fired, suspect shot and killed by police, four people shot. Not terror related.
Well, I guess that being fired was worth killing a woman and shooting nine others.
Ock, would you say that logistically speaking it would have been better if this guy had been armed with a rock?
And why werent Bridge Troll, Not Now, and Non Redneck Westsider there to shoot him dead, skull hump him and ride off without fanfare in order to prevent him from harming any innocent people?
Come on guys, if you are going to be trusted to keep public order, you arent doing a very good job of it.
Three different visits to NYC personally myself, at the first glance, the semi-majority of NYPD are overweight and have this "assholism" or disgruntled attitude of their own that I didn't even like.
Heck, Florida State Troopers are much nicer than NYPD in terms of just saying a greeting and a nod back. This is not biased toward Florida. Granted, we really DO have more crazy people here in Florida than any other states (Just look at high speed chase videos... ONLY in Florida :D)
-Josh
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 10:28:21 AM
Ock, would you say that logistically speaking it would have been better if this guy had been armed with a rock?
And why werent Bridge Troll, Not Now, and Non Redneck Westsider there to shoot him dead, skull hump him and ride off without fanfare in order to prevent him from harming any innocent people?
Come on guys, if you are going to be trusted to keep public order, you arent doing a very good job of it.
Stephen, it's not even thirty minutes after the news broke and you are launching into your routine already? To me that seems pretty insensitive and not what I expect from you.
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
Its not even a couple of weeks since the last mass shooting, Zissou. Extraordinary times.
We agree on that. I can't remember a time when so many shootings of 5+ victims took place. Combine that with the terror that is going on in Chicago and this may be one of the deadliest years on record. It really is starting to feel like the Mayans might be right.
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 24, 2012, 12:18:28 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 10:28:21 AM
Ock, would you say that logistically speaking it would have been better if this guy had been armed with a rock?
And why werent Bridge Troll, Not Now, and Non Redneck Westsider there to shoot him dead, skull hump him and ride off without fanfare in order to prevent him from harming any innocent people?
Come on guys, if you are going to be trusted to keep public order, you arent doing a very good job of it.
Stephen, it's not even thirty minutes after the news broke and you are launching into your routine already? To me that seems pretty insensitive and not what I expect from you.
Its not even a couple of weeks since the last mass shooting, Zissou. Extraordinary times.
Despite this, violent crime numbers are still way down from their highs in the late 80s and early 90s. We just have more fruitcakes who want to be famous.
plus, in the information age we live in now, the shooter will get a week of fame while everyone comes through his background and speculates on 100 different reasons why it happened.
Quote from: fsquid on August 24, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
plus, in the information age we live in now, the shooter will get a week of fame while everyone comes through his background and speculates on 100 different reasons why it happened.
What a novel idea... perhaps the issue is not so much a second amendment one as first amendment one...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 24, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: fsquid on August 24, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
plus, in the information age we live in now, the shooter will get a week of fame while everyone comes through his background and speculates on 100 different reasons why it happened.
What a novel idea... perhaps the issue is not so much a second amendment one as first amendment one...
by product of the first amendment, wouldn't call it an "issue".
Quote from: fsquid on August 24, 2012, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 24, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: fsquid on August 24, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
plus, in the information age we live in now, the shooter will get a week of fame while everyone comes through his background and speculates on 100 different reasons why it happened.
What a novel idea... perhaps the issue is not so much a second amendment one as first amendment one...
by product of the first amendment, wouldn't call it an "issue".
So... it is at least worth exploring the possibility that the rash of mass shootings is a "by product" of the first amendment. Perhaps the press is equally as culpable in publicizing in lurid and graphic detail these mass shootings as ... the gun manufacturers and clingers to the second amendment? This is just shocking...
Quote from: Captain Zissou on August 24, 2012, 12:56:19 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 12:49:14 PM
Its not even a couple of weeks since the last mass shooting, Zissou. Extraordinary times.
We agree on that. I can't remember a time when so many shootings of 5+ victims took place. Combine that with the terror that is going on in Chicago and this may be one of the deadliest years on record. It really is starting to feel like the Mayans might be right.
What's going on in Chicago?
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 12:57:13 PM
QuoteTwo law enforcement officials in New York City say a recently fired store worker shot a former colleague to death and then randomly opened fired on others near the Empire State Building.
The officials say eight other people were struck by bullets but those injuries are not believed to be life threatening.
The officials say the gunman previously worked at a store inside the landmark skyscraper. The shooting happened at about 9 a.m. Friday at 34th Street and Fifth Avenue.
The law enforcement officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.
Federal officials say the shooting isn't related to terrorism, and a guard at the landmark said it didn't involve the parts of the building where tourists gather to visit the skyscraper.
Bloomberg said [during the press conference]. "He killed one person and 9 others were shot, and some may have been shot accidentally by police officers who responded."
I guess there were other people with guns on the scene.
Unfortunately they may have shot even more people.
Hang on- some cops go cowboy and accidentally shoot some people and you're going to presume it has something to do with other folks having firearms?? Do you have any facts at all to support this specious bit of conjecture?
There is NO mention of "other folks with guns" in what you cited, nor in what I'm reading on line. It appears that the shooter killed a co-worker and then left the scene. When confronted by police he drew his weapon and he was shot along with eight innocent bystanders in the resulting crossfire on a crowded street.
Just the facts Ma'am.
The man who gunned down several rush-hour commuters outside the Empire State Building this morning was killed in a hail of police gunfire ... in plain view of the public.
53-year-old Jeffrey Johnson was fired from his job last year at Hazan Imports, a woman's clothing store ... across the street from the Empire State building. He returned this morning around 9AM for revenge, shooting and killing a former co-worker with a .45-caliber handgun.
The streets were packed with tourists and commuters at the time -- and according to police, Johnson fled the scene ... walking up 5th Avenue with his gun concealed in a black bag under his arm.
An eyewitness who saw the shooting alerted nearby officers who then approached Johnson -- and cops claim Johnson responded by taking out his gun and opening fire.
The officers returned fire, killing Johnson -- and upwards of 9 bystanders were injured in the crossfire.
Mayor Bloomberg released a statement saying, "What I want to do is assure everybody this has nothing to do with terrorism."
Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/24/empire-state-shooter-shot-dead/#ixzz24V4bRGFR
OMG, seriously? Now you have a problem with cops having firearms??
Sorry I missed that the first time through.
I misunderstood your earlier post and thought that you were inferring that responding officers shot armed citizens who were present, because they had weapons. My bad.
I think it's worth considering if we need to look at Nut Control as eagerly as we do Gun Control. I'd be curious to know what signs of illness this guy had exhibited prior to this incident, and what if any responses or intercessions had occurred. Perhaps if we did more as a society to provide help to the crazies among us we wouldn't have as many of them acting out violently.
??
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 05:48:24 PM
I just think we should all concentrate on how to make a real change to human nature.
Mass medication maybe? Pre Crime detentions? Prosecutions for anger management.
You know, something practical.
Oh, OK, so you're saying that we should just leave crazy people alone, and instead remove all sharp objects, rocks over one ounce, anything that can be used to bludgeon others, or literally
anything else that could be used as a weapon from our environment?
Makes sense to me. Especially since we're doing so much to help people with mental health issues already.
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 05:57:37 PM
Quote from: Pinky on August 24, 2012, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 05:48:24 PM
I just think we should all concentrate on how to make a real change to human nature.
Mass medication maybe? Pre Crime detentions? Prosecutions for anger management.
You know, something practical.
Oh, OK, so you're saying that we should just leave crazy people alone, and instead remove all sharp objects, rocks over one ounce, anything that can be used to bludgeon others, or literally anything else that could be used as a weapon from our environment?
Makes sense to me. Especially since we're doing so much to help people with mental health issues already.
heavens no. I agree with you. Lets meditate on mental illness for a few decades. But in the meantime, keep selling really dangerous killing machines to people without knowing if they are mentally unstable. What could possibly go wrong?
Again, you seem to equate the tool with the behavior. Guns serve a multitude of legitimate purposes, beyond the "really dangerous killing machines" they become in the hands of a mentally deranged person.
It's like automobiles and alcohol. They are both clearly involved in every single drunk driving tragedy, no? So why don't we just get rid of them. I mean, a tiny fraction of the people who utilize them do so in a terribly destructive and horrific manner; why do we allow the automobile and alcohol companies to continue to push these tools of the devil on our society???
"A man has been charged with bashing a Spanish tourist in the head with a hammer in a park next to City Hall.
John Yoos is being held without bail after his arraignment Tuesday on attempted murder charges.
Yoos said nothing as a prosecutor described what she called "a completely random act of brutal violence on a total stranger."
Authorities say Hugo Alejandre was eating lunch on a bench in City Hall Park on Monday when the 43-year-old Yoos abruptly attacked him. Bystanders intervened.
Alejandre was treated at a hospital for a spinal fracture and deep cuts. He declined to comment as he left the Manhattan district attorney's office Tuesday.
Yoos' lawyer said an assault charge, rather than an attempted murder charge, would be more appropriate to the allegations."
Did you know that anybody, without so much as a background check, can walk into their neighborhood Home Depot and buy these insanely dangerous killing machines?? It's shocking I tell you.
A woman suddenly drove her car into a crowded town square in northwest Ohio and struck bystanders, sending some through the air and injuring about 30 people, some of whom were pinned under the car and freed when bystanders lifted it, authorities and witnesses said.
No one was killed, but some victims suffered serious injuries to their legs, heads and necks, police said. A hospital spokeswoman said about 30 people were treated Friday night. All but four were released, and at least one other victim was taken to another hospital.
The chaotic scene unfolded after 9 on Friday night in Lima, where more than 1,000 people had gathered for a weekly community event featuring live music, police said.
"We were packed," said Andrea Scheckelhoss, who was working in a beer truck at the event. "This was probably one of our busiest nights."
She said people were trying to get their last round of beer for the night when she saw a small, two-door vehicle come from her right and plow through the crowd. About 50 people were in and around the car's path.
"I could hear the people hitting against the car," the 25-year-old Scheckelhoss said. "There were shoes flying. I could see people tumbled over. It was just so disturbing."
Todd Truesdale, the fire chief for Shawnee Township, was at the event with his wife and some friends. He said he had his back turned to the accident when he heard a loud scream and turned around.
"I saw two people go up the air, and I knew it was a car," he said. "I couldn't see it, but I heard the revving of the engine."
Finally, the car struck an old sculpture in the square, witnesses say, then came to a stop with its windshield shattered. Those nearby picked it up to free victims who were trapped.
Scheckelhoss, one of the first people to dial 911, said the unidentified driver appeared to be in her 40s. She had a white dog in the back seat.
"I remember looking at the woman's face," she said. "She looked disoriented."
Truesdalem, who said the car came to rest right beside him, began to help local responders.
"Everyone was trying to help," he said. "It was tragic, but it was nice to see the community come together, especially the local fire, police and EMS."
It's not clear what happened to the driver. Police said they're still investigating what may have caused the crash.
ROME (AP) â€" A speeding car plowed head-on into a group of cyclists in southern Italy on Sunday morning, killing eight of them, officials said. The driver had been smoking marijuana, police said.
Bent, mangled bikes were strewn about the scene, and the sheet-draped corpses dotted the two-lane road near Lamezia Terme, in the Calabrian "toe" of boot-shaped Italy where the accident occurred.
In addition to the eight cyclists killed, four people were injured: two cyclists and the driver and a young boy in the car with him, said Maria Dolores Rucci, commander of the road police in nearby Catanzaro.
The ANSA news agency said the driver, who was only slightly injured, was placed under arrest on charges of multiple homicide. A police spokesman who declined to give his name said the man, a Moroccan national, had tested positive for marijuana.
A preliminary investigation showed the speeding car ran headfirst into the group of 10 cyclists who were riding in the opposite direction on state road 18, according to Italy's highway authority.
Did you know that there are places where you can buy automobiles without so much as a dollar down??
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 03:17:42 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 24, 2012, 02:50:49 PM
Quote from: fsquid on August 24, 2012, 02:36:15 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 24, 2012, 02:13:14 PM
Quote from: fsquid on August 24, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
plus, in the information age we live in now, the shooter will get a week of fame while everyone comes through his background and speculates on 100 different reasons why it happened.
What a novel idea... perhaps the issue is not so much a second amendment one as first amendment one...
by product of the first amendment, wouldn't call it an "issue".
So... it is at least worth exploring the possibility that the rash of mass shootings is a "by product" of the first amendment. Perhaps the press is equally as culpable in publicizing in lurid and graphic detail these mass shootings as ... the gun manufacturers and clingers to the second amendment? This is just shocking...
Ok sure. Ill be your huckleberry, BT.
Lets hear what youve got.
Can we agree that many of these are of the copycat variety? This ype of crime is a rather new phenomenon would you agree? Why now? Notoriety perhaps?
In Rwanda somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were butchered, almost exclusively with machetes. That's a LOT of people. Should we outlaw anything that has a sharp edge?
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Take it easy Stephen,
I'm just messin' with you.
There once was a man with a gun,
who shot innocent people for fun,
if laws weren't lax
he'd just use an axe
or a sword, or a rock, or a beaver trap, or a crossbow.
(Poetry isn't my strong suit..)
Firearms go boom
maybe a deer or a mom
depends on who shoots
(Haiku is my game...)
so you want a gun
I suppose a nuke is next
Stephen is smart, see?
seven billion folks
a few fucktards go postal
take away all guns!
Dead guy on sidewalk
ah, I see what you did there
nice one Stephen Dare
I propose new rule
only haiku for one day
what say you Stephen?
lets solve all problems
the answer is obvious
second amendment
silly silly me
forgot posts carry such weight
the world is watching
UN wasting time
congress wrestles with the law
should read metrojax
All of the wounded people were shot by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Three people were actually hit by bullets. Six were struck by fragments of flower pots, concrete, etc. Those six were treated and released.
This is a perfect opportunity for StephenDare! Without ever making a decision or risking himself, he can second guess every move made by anyone involved. The sidewalks in front of the Empire State building are crowded with tourist. This is where the contact was made with the suspect. The suspect drew his weapon to fire and the Police were forced to respond. Watch the CCTV video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W8cHwNuqH4
Go ahead Dare!. Avail us with what YOU would have done in the same situation. You should be comfortable by now in the role of criticizing Police Officers making split second decisions in gunfights.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 25, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
All of the wounded people were shot by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
so relying on armed members of the community to stop gun violence via their guns actually resulting in 9 times more people getting shot?
Any thoughts on this Bridge Troll? Pinky?
Thank goodness the police were there to stop him. We could perhaps ask for better marksmanship but having never been in a gun battle I cannot criticize. (though some find it easy)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 25, 2012, 03:15:43 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 25, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
All of the wounded people were shot by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
so relying on armed members of the community to stop gun violence via their guns actually resulting in 9 times more people getting shot?
Any thoughts on this Bridge Troll? Pinky?
Thank goodness the police were there to stop him. We could perhaps ask for better marksmanship but having never been in a gun battle I cannot criticize. (though some find it easy)
I agree, BT.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: carpnter on August 25, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
All of the wounded people were shot by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
so relying on armed members of the community to stop gun violence via their guns actually resulting in 9 times more people getting shot?
Any thoughts on this Bridge Troll? Pinky?
I think we should make it illegal to kill people, that way we'd have some mechanism by which we could remove those who would harm others from our society.. Because as we all know, laws solve all problems.
I think that you're never going to eliminate violence through the use of legislation or by confiscating any tool. The vast majority of gun owners will never be involved in gun-related violence, just like the vast majority of people will never be involved in gun violence. You are FAR more likely to die of heart disease (1 in 5), cancer (1 in 7), stroke (1 in 24) motor vehicle accident (1 in 84), suicide (1 in 120), or even falling down (1 in 218) than of ever being shot (1 in 314). In fact, the vast majority of those 1 in 314 are those involved in criminal activity or domestic violence; for those not engaged in gang-banging and other such activities the odds of being involved in gun violence are astronomically small. Yes, it does happen, but it happens so rarely that it merits national media coverage when it does.
I absolutely agree that violence of any sort is awful, and I wish that just by passing a few laws we could eliminate it. I also wish that my Bull Mastiff would crap $100 bills, and that everyday would be sunshine, but still, it rains.
The vast majority of firearm owners are law-abiding people who will never be involved in violence of any sort. Ownership of firearms means that if it ever became necessary, I would be able to hunt to feed my family, fend off those who might seek to harm us, and if ever necessary, to fight against any military force (foreign or domestic) which might seek to deny the citizenry of the inconvenient rights upon which our nation was founded. Ironically, "the right to keep and bear arms" among them.
Or, in Haiku form:
You can take my guns
From my cold dead hands they say
But you'll get shot too.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 06:57:00 PM
Do you think that the aim is to cure violence in the human species?
Or are you under the impression that the point of well regulating firearms is to protect innocent gun metal from being accused of murder and unfairly jailed?
Given that you keep citing violence while arguing against guns, I can only assume that you have a problem with said violence. But instead of playing Twenty Rhetorical Questions, how about you just tell me?
Regarding your "well regulated firearms" question, I have no idea what youre talking about. Looks like more rhetorical questions to me, mixed in with an odd appropriation of the "well regulated militia" phrasing lifted from the Second Amendment to add weight to an otherwise nonsensical question.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 07:00:03 PM
just out of curiosity, pinky. which of the militias have you served in that required your guns as part of their regulations?
I'm an Army Of One, representing the United States Of Pinky.
Where, pray tell, is this odd bit of rhetoric headed?
Dude, I'm so confused. Do you or do you not think people should be able to possess firearms, or do you actually have no opinion on the subject?
This tragedy is a murder-suicide with the suicide being suicide by cop.
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 05:57:37 PM
Quote from: Pinky on August 24, 2012, 05:53:22 PM
Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 05:48:24 PM
I just think we should all concentrate on how to make a real change to human nature.
Mass medication maybe? Pre Crime detentions? Prosecutions for anger management.
You know, something practical.
Oh, OK, so you're saying that we should just leave crazy people alone, and instead remove all sharp objects, rocks over one ounce, anything that can be used to bludgeon others, or literally anything else that could be used as a weapon from our environment?
Makes sense to me. Especially since we're doing so much to help people with mental health issues already.
heavens no. I agree with you. Lets meditate on mental illness for a few decades. But in the meantime, keep selling really dangerous killing machines to people without knowing if they are mentally unstable. What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, silly me; I thought you were *against* "dangerous killing machines" by posts like this.
Agreed Stephen; it's idiotic to sell guns to mentally ill people. Has anyone here advocated that?
Now this is *you* making up an opinion for me. Show me where I've advocated selling guns to unstable people.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 09:47:12 PM
Quote from: Pinky on August 25, 2012, 09:42:12 PM
Now this is *you* making up an opinion for me. Show me where I've advocated selling guns to unstable people.
Coming up with a way to stop this is exactly what you have been strenuously arguing against for three solid days, pinky.
Go back over the threads and read them.
Nowhere have I ever advocated selling guns to unstable people Stephen. Your gross distortion and mischaracterization of my position is laughable, and for you, typical.
Reports reference seven shots,one remaining in the chamber.
possibly no evil recent appearance "high capacity" assault piece....simply plain old '1911 Government 45'....circa 1911 A.D.
Even Grand dad's 'ol single shot is attrocious in the wrong hands/wrong mind
Here we go again. A man perceives he has been unfairly treated regarding his livelihood. He feels the stress and pressure of being in a corner, and becomes because of it, much like an animal. He strikes out because he believes that too much of his life has been taken away. In his mind, there is nothing left. He feels his life is threatened. He becomes as a trapped animal, dangerous, unpredictable, desperate, and much like an animal, he is set and able to kill.
If he had no gun to kill the individual whom he perceived to be the cause of his grief and desperation, he could have used a knife, a sword, a bomb, a sharp umbrella, an automobile, a hammer, or a pipe. As I attempt to imagine myself to be in a similar mental condition wherein I believed that I must end my suffering, and if I did not have the convenience of using a gun, I imagine myself, with some effort of course, using a hammer or a pipe, as knives seem not to permit sufficient emotional release……. no wild physical action as with the hammer or pipe.
In the days of the frontier, a family needed a gun for food and to protect themselves from Indians and other threats in the wild America of the time. Imagine anyone talking about the restriction of guns in those early times?
The Indian threat was removed during the late 19th century, but there remains today an environment within which the average person must have a method to protect themselves and their families. Of course, for all practical purposes, a gun is not needed for food these days, but there are plenty of hunters who would raise hell if their hunting ability was removed.
Existing gun laws make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, but with so many guns out and about in America, most criminals can obtain guns if given a little time, such as being lucky during a home burglary.
We are certainly an armed society. And the shootings are being performed not only by the criminals, but the normal individuals who, via some kind of job, financial, or relationship loss or stress, have sought solutions, revenge, or relief by killing those perceived to be the cause.
If a criminal or stressed individual does not have a gun, they might still kill, but it will be without the gun. The gun makes killing much more convenient, and therefore much more probable, given a condition wherein it is an option.
The current high availability of guns will promote more killings by these individuals, simply because of the convenience provided by the high availability. If the guns were not so available, then the criminal might instead work harder to find a job, might engage a drug treatment program, or might starve to death, or might simply survive as a homeless person. And the stressed individual, because of the absence of a handy gun, might have time to chill out, or to resolve a predicament, and therefore might not kill the ex-spouse or the individual responsible for his job or home loss.
So, even though it seems highly impractical to seek remove of all guns from the environment, it seems practical to decrease the overall gun population in our society by decreasing the ease with which guns can be obtained by anyone, both the criminal and the average person. The decrease in the overall number of guns in our society could be accomplished by holding gun purchase programs throughout, and by making it inconvenient for anyone to purchase or obtain guns from any source.
The objective would not be to ban guns, but only to reduce the availability of guns, and to make it less convenient for their purchase. The outright banning of guns will only insure a black market, much like the prohibition environment. There will always be entities willing to manufacture guns and ammunition. And there will always be individuals who are willing to engage in the smuggling and distribution of guns so that anyone having the funds could obtain them.
Therefore, there is some truth to the saying that “Banning guns will insure that only the criminals will have themâ€. Knowing that only criminals have guns, how many of us law abiding citizens will willingly give up our guns? What would we use to protect ourselves from the criminals who will always be able to obtain guns, no matter what our laws say?
I am all for gun rights, but I always chuckle when I hear someone say they need an multi-clip assault rifle (think M16/AR15) to kill a wild boar. Really? No sport there, might as well use a 50 caliber and shred the entire forest to hell while you are at it, and anything in its way.
Again, pro-gun here, but it is amusing to hear the discussion. Sad about NYC and Colorado, recently.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteRunning amok, sometimes referred to as simply amok[1] (also spelled amuk, from the Malay meaning "mad with uncontrollable rage") is a term for a killing spree perpetrated by an individual out of rage or resentment over perceived mistreatment.
The syndrome of "Amok" is found in the DSM-IV TR.[2]
"Running amok" is used to refer to the behavior of someone who, in the grip of strong emotion, obtains a weapon and begins attacking people indiscriminately, often with multiple fatalities. The slang term going postal is similar in scope. Police describe such an event as a killing spree. If the individual is seeking death an alternate method is often suicide by cop.
Quote from: stephendare on August 25, 2012, 08:19:17 PM
see this is that part where I was telling you about. Where you make up an opinion for me, then argue it, regardless of whatever i might actually think or say.
I have no opinion on the use or posession of firearms.
I do however think that the weapons of mass destruction that are being sold to unstable people should stop.
We have more stringent rules on driving a car than we do on ownership of these weapons, and that is a result of half cocked politics.
My main reservation over the years to this type of mass killing weapon being either banned or tightly controlled (I don't really have a preference) has been the old chestnut about guarding against tyranny.
But since our police forces are doing their best to join with national and international forces and have switched from being militias of the people and more like paramilitary outfits for the feds, I no longer think that firearms of this sort will be effective over the next few years anyways. Not with our plans on 'gently' microwaving people, bursting their eardrums with focused sound waves and deployment of drones for police work.
The only thing these things are good for now is butchering other human beings.
For me, this is solely about limiting the scale of destruction that one person can do to the people around them.
Has nothing to do with whether or not they should own rifles, or even pistols and handguns, in my mind.
I don't know what the answer is, Pinky, but I don't think that any of the laissez faire answers weve deployed at the behest of the NRA are working.
Well if you have no opinion why did the post go on for a few more paragraphs giving us your opinion. Look say what you think and be honest with it. Don't pretend your agnostic and post on every gun control shooting thread its dishonest.