school shooting

[MrsSpringsteen]

BEMIDJI, Minn. (Reuters) - A 17-year-old who killed nine people and himself on a Minnesota Indian reservation identified himself as an "angel of death" and a "NativeNazi" on Internet postings, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Officials sealed off the remote town of Red Lake, 60 miles south of the Canadian border, while they investigated Monday's bloodbath, the worst U.S. school shooting since the 1999 Columbine massacre.

Floyd Jourdain Jr., chairman of the Red Lake Indian council, called the tragedy "the darkest day in the history of our tribe."

The shooter was Red Lake High School sophomore Jeff Weise, according to witnesses and school officials.

Weise identified himself in Internet site postings as "Todesengel," German for "angel of death" and "NativeNazi," the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported.

He also claimed to have been questioned by police in 2004 about an alleged plot to shoot up the school on the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birthday, but said he had nothing to do with that, the report said.

"I guess I've always carried a natural admiration for Hitler and his ideals, and his courage to take on larger nations," the newspaper quoted Weise as saying in one forum used by neo-Nazis.

Other reports described Weise as someone who was often teased at the school.

Weise's rampage began when he shot dead his grandfather, identified as veteran tribal police officer Daryl "Dash" Lussier, and Lussier's girlfriend at their home.

The gunman then drove his grandfather's police car to the school, where he killed a male security guard, a teacher and five students before taking his own, the FBIsaid.

"We believe the shooter was acting alone," said FBI agent Paul McCabe, adding the dead at the school were all in one room.

The gunman fired at doors of classrooms barricaded by terrified students and teachers, witnesses said.

"He came into the school and the first person he shot was the security officer at the door," said Molly Miron, editor of the Bemidji Pioneer newspaper. "One of the students told me he pointed his gun at a boy and then changed his mind, smiled, waved at him, and shot somebody else."

Police, alerted to the massacre when students used cell phones to call for help, said they exchanged gunfire with the gunman, who ducked into a classroom and shot himself.

Witnesses said he was armed with a shotgun or rifle and at least one handgun.

It was the deadliest U.S. school shooting since the April 20, 1999, Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in which 14 students -- including the two killers -- and a teacher died.

The Minnesota reservation is controlled by the Ojibwa tribe, commonly known as the Chippewa, which says it has roughly 10,000 members, about half of whom live on the reservation.

The tribe runs its own affairs and operates casinos in the state and a small casino in Red Lake, 35 miles north of Bemidji on the shores of Lower Red Lake. But the casinos are not as successful as others in more populous areas and unemployment on the reservation is high.

It was the latest multiple shooting in a month of deadly gun violence in the United States, including the deaths of seven congregants at a church service near Milwaukee and four people in an Atlanta courtroom escape.

 

[Popmartijn]

The United States ranks 24th in the world in intentional homicides per capita. People killing eachother is not something unique to the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

But consider the countries above it, with the likes of Colombia, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Ukraine, etc. And the next highly developed country on that list is Finland (at #30), with a homicide rate roughly half of that of the USA.
But this isn't about homicides, it's about shooting people. And on the ranking of Murders With Firearms, the USA is 8th.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

 

[MaxFisher]

Shooting someone is a homicide. Whether you set out to kill someone using a gun, a knife, a rock, a bomb, a car, etc., killing someone is killing someone. Simply becuase someone uses a gun to kill someone doesn't make the act any more grievous.

 

[nbcrusader]

Why do Americans need to own guns?

More guns = more shootings

Don't even start with gun ownership.

Problems like this start with the parents and the family environment. We are so worried about calling someone a "bad parent" and so unwilling to help out families that need emotional support, that we point the finger just about everywhere else.

 

[Irvine511]

Shooting someone is a homicide. Whether you set out to kill someone using a gun, a knife, a rock, a bomb, a car, etc., killing someone is killing someone. Simply becuase someone uses a gun to kill someone doesn't make the act any more grievous.

you're right, but it still remains that a knife, a rock, and a car are not intended to kill people. the intent of the design of a gun is death no matter how you slice it. the proper use of a knife or car will not result in death; the proper use of a gun will.

i do agree that many people are responsible with their guns, and that many people do live in areas where they need guns for self defense from, say, bears and moose. however, i do think that guns fall into a special category and we can't simply dismiss murder with a firearm as the same thing as murder with a rock or a knife or a car. to simply say "well, people have been killing each other forever" doesn't mean that it's a good thing, nor does it mean that attempting to change and regulate society in order to reduce the number of homocides. while gun control is a treatment of the symptom rather than the disease, it is an important step. you're correct in that guns do not fire on their own -- unless your 6 year old comes across your loaded gun and drops it and blows her head off ... *then* that gun killed someone -- and that someone is making a decision to pull that trigger. however, the ease of killing with a gun, and the immense amount of power the possession of a gun wields, means that the gun itself is part of the problem. do you think that 10 people would have been killed as easily by a rock or a knife or a car? while this individual might have found another way to kill, the availability of a gun and the ease with which it allows one to accomplish it's only objective (to kill) makes the gun an accomplice in the crime. guns enable death unlike any other product in society.

 

[U2democrat]

what a great time to be a public high schooler.....

my high school is actually eerilly similar to columbine...........

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

to simply say "well, people have been killing each other forever" doesn't mean that it's a good thing, nor does it mean that attempting to change and regulate society in order to reduce the number of homocides.

I don't think he was trying to imply that it was a good or natural thing or anything like that-he was simply saying that we've been using many things to kill each other for years, and that we're going to keep this tragic cycle going until we figure out why people are so intent on killing each other in the first place. And there's nothing wrong whatsoever with trying to change society so that this doesn't happen anymore-nobody likes hearing about this stuff (unless they're really sick in the head), and we certainly don't want to hear about school shootings happening anymore. We're just saying going around banning guns and things along that line won't solve the problems. nbcrusader's absolutely right about it all starting with the parents and family environment, and taking personal responsiblity for your own actions as well.

Originally posted by Irvine511
you're correct in that guns do not fire on their own -- unless your 6 year old comes across your loaded gun and drops it and blows her head off ... *then* that gun killed someone -- and that someone is making a decision to pull that trigger.

If someone is holding a gun and pulls the trigger, that was their choice. There's people who've held guns and can't bring themselves to pull the trigger, too. So long as the gun's just sitting there, it can't do anything to anybody.

And if a 6 year old girl is able to get hold of a gun that easily, again, we've got to be asking where in the world her parents were when she found it, and why they didn't think to put it in a safer place and why they didn't think to teach her not to touch it.

Originally posted by Irvine511
do you think that 10 people would have been killed as easily by a rock or a knife or a car?

Rocks and knives perhaps not so much, but cars certainly can kill a good deal of people...what about all those pileups you hear about on the roads from time to time due to something or other? I just heard a story yesterday about a pileup that happened in Arizona one year in which 10 people did die. Someone on there was saying that it's a good thing they managed to stop more cars from traveling into this whole mess, otherwise that death toll could've been a lot higher. And there've been crashes where a good number of people were killed because there was a family in one car and a group of kids out on a joyride in another. Seriously, that's one reason I've been holding off on driving on my own and all that (among other ones)-I've seen some of the loons I'd have to share the road with, and that quite frankly scares the hell out of me.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

If someone is holding a gun and pulls the trigger, that was their choice. There's people who've held guns and can't bring themselves to pull the trigger, too. So long as the gun's just sitting there, it can't do anything to anybody.

And if a 6 year old girl is able to get hold of a gun that easily, again, we've got to be asking where in the world her parents were when she found it, and why they didn't think to put it in a safer place and why they didn't think to teach her not to touch it.

i'm sorry, i don't agree. yes, as i stated, responsibility lies with the person who pulled the trigger, but the only purpose of a gun is to kill. it's job is to kill, and the presence of a gun in a household -- as opposed to a rock, a knife, or a car -- makes the probability of a homocide occuring at that house skyrocket. guns enable death in a way that *nothing* else produced does.

why should a 6 year old be dead because she had bad parents? and what about the 11 year old who knows where his dad keeps the key, keeps the bullets, and gets the gun and takes it to school? the mere presence of a gun makes a house and its inhabitants much less safe. and is an angry 11 year old really making a conscious decision to shoot a friend? was it really *his* choice?

 

[Muggsy]

But consider the countries above it, with the likes of Colombia, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Ukraine, etc. And the next highly developed country on that list is Finland (at #30), with a homicide rate roughly half of that of the USA.

yeah... but consider the situation of each country.... Colombia, for example, is in the middle of a military situation, and the goverment is making a great effort to destroy all the drugs business wich means more violence.

here, possesing guns is not allowed for common people but there are shootings anyway , and there are cases like the one is this thread about. I think that it doesn't matter if it is allowed or not having guns... but i really think that if you carry a gun you will have to choose if you use it or not and sometimes it seems to be the first solution to some situations.

I feel that many people has lost the sense of value of the human life, and I'm not talking just about the serial killers or rapists. Sometimes i found this like a scary black hole of the human nature... why do we have weapons?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

RED LAKE, Minnesota (CNN) -- A student who authorities said killed seven people at a northern Minnesota high school drove to the school in his grandfather's police car.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Michael Tabman said Tuesday that Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, Daryl Lussier, and his grandfather's girlfriend, Michelle Sigana, with a .22-caliber gun Monday before going to Red Lake Senior High School.

Tabman said authorities believe Weise stole his grandfather's police-issued pistol and a shot gun as well as a bulletproof vest. Authorities said he had three guns in all.

At the school, Weise shot and killed 28-year-old Derrick Brun, an unarmed security guard, then saw teacher Neva Winnecoup-Rogers in the hall, Tabman said.

According to Tabman, Weise, wearing the police vest, followed Rogers into her classroom where he shot and killed five students -- Thurlene Stillday, 15; Chase Lussier, 15, Chenelle Rosebear, 15, Alicia Spike, 14, Dwayne Lewis, 15.

FBI Special Agent Paul McCabe would not say if Chase Lussier was related to Daryl Lussier, age 58.

Tabman said there was a videotape shot in the school during the shooting but that it only showed Weise in the hallway and not in any classroom.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

i'm sorry, i don't agree. yes, as i stated, responsibility lies with the person who pulled the trigger, but the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

Yes. And most people who own guns use them to hunt for food, not to kill people.

Originally posted by Irvine511
and the presence of a gun in a household -- as opposed to a rock, a knife, or a car -- makes the probability of a homocide occuring at that house skyrocket. guns enable death in a way that *nothing* else produced does.

Yes, that makes it a lot more risky, having guns in the house, no doubt about that. But then again, there are households in which people own guns and there haven't been any accidental deaths, too. What about those families-why is it they've been lucky enough to not suffer such tragedies, and others have?

Originally posted by Irvine511
why should a 6 year old be dead because she had bad parents?

She shouldn't be. Again, if her parents were smart enough to keep the gun out of reach of her, and if they made sure she knew not to touch that gun, and kept an eye on her whenever she went near wherever the gun was (I would hope parents wouldn't be stupid enough to leave a 6 year old girl alone at home for a good number of hours), she wouldn't be dead.

Originally posted by Irvine511
and what about the 11 year old who knows where his dad keeps the key, keeps the bullets, and gets the gun and takes it to school?

Again, why didn't his parents teach him to stay away from that gun? Why didn't his parents teach him that taking a gun to school isn't allowed, that you don't use a gun to solve your problems with classmates?

Originally posted by Irvine511
the mere presence of a gun makes a house and its inhabitants much less safe.

It adds a risk of danger, yes, but again, not every household that owns guns has fallen prey to accidental shootings. Why is that?

I have no desire to have a gun in my home, personally, but if a family is responsible with the gun that's in their house, there shouldn't be any problems.

Originally posted by Irvine511
and is an angry 11 year old really making a conscious decision to shoot a friend? was it really *his* choice?

That's what some people have said in this thread-we need to figure out why the kid acted the way he did.

Angela

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

In Singapore guns and firearms are banned.

Shootings do happen due to theft of firearms from security officers and policemen, but these are few and far between.

School violence is actually quite a big problem here. There have been cases of kids being beaten up and in some awful cases actually been knifed.

Will banning guns in America help? Possibly. It does limit at least one avenue for carrying out any such horrific acts, but if a kid is dead set on these types of deeds, I think he could find a lot of ways around it.

 

[babyman]

it's not the first case, i can't understand how boys get so easily with guns inside the schools...it's simply amazing, how can this happen??!!

 

[deep]

Don't even start with box-cutter or pocket knife control


box-cutters and pocket knifes are useful and have been carried for hundreds of years

 

[Irvine511]

Angela:

but the fact remains that this kid, without a gun, would not have killed 10 people. maybe he would have done other things, but you wouldn't have had a massacre without a gun.

i agree with your point that most people are responsible, and most people use guns to hunt. but that's not always the situation, and besides, if you were using a gun to hunt, why not keep it at the hunting club?

there are guns that are available to peolpe that have no purpose other than to kill other people -- they are not for hunting. do people use shotguns to hunt? .38 magnums? saturday-night specials?

i suppose what i'm saying is that guns are 100% unique, and they must be treated as such; and the mere presence of a gun is more likely to make someone kill.

so, yes, guns help people kill people, more than a rock or knife or car can help you kill someone.

 

[VertigoGal]

Just taking guns out of our culture is a nice idea, but it's not realistic. At this point, the people who are going to commit crimes with guns will easily get them anyhow. The law abiding citizens who want guns for hunting or protection will simply be less able to protect themselves. There's no way you can just take guns out of the equation, and I don't think making criminals the only ones with guns is going to help anything. I mean, according to your plan, we should just automatically disarm the police as well, since guns are no longer necessary?

You can kill people with a knife, poison, a vehicle, anything. I think there's a deeper problem here, that some of you would just like to attribute to gun ownership. As if this never would happen if people didn't have access to a particular type of weapon.

 

[deep]

a pocket knife on a cross country flight would be very useful to open a bag of beef jerky

 

[VertigoGal]

Angela:

but the fact remains that this kid, without a gun, would not have killed 10 people. maybe he would have done other things, but you wouldn't have had a massacre without a gun.

homemade bombs?

 

[Irvine511]

homemade bombs?

that requires a bunch of legal materials assembled illegally. requires time, effort, knowhow, etc.

a gun is designed to kill. you purchase it for the purpose of killing, or projecting the threat of killing.

these are important distinctions when it comes to the regulation of products in our society.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Angela:

but the fact remains that this kid, without a gun, would not have killed 10 people. maybe he would have done other things, but you wouldn't have had a massacre without a gun.

As pointed out, there's homemade bombs, too. Geez, if you hit someone hard enough and in just the right part of the body, you could kill them.

Originally posted by Irvine511
i agree with your point that most people are responsible, and most people use guns to hunt. but that's not always the situation,

Exactly, so we need to find a way to stop those kinds of situations from happening-we need to teach people about taking responsiblity for their own actions, we need to get parents to wise up and realize that it's up to them to teach their children to stay away from things they aren't meant to be near, such as guns, we need to figure out what exactly makes a kid want to go out and do something this horrible, etc., etc. But taking guns away wouldn't solve the problem, as people could still obtain them other ways, and it wouldn't be fair to those who are responsible with their guns.

Originally posted by Irvine511
and besides, if you were using a gun to hunt, why not keep it at the hunting club?

Do all people who own guns also belong to hunting clubs?

Originally posted by Irvine511
there are guns that are available to peolpe that have no purpose other than to kill other people -- they are not for hunting. do people use shotguns to hunt? .38 magnums? saturday-night specials?

Here I will agree that there needs to be some gun control laws in place with these-I do think having those kinds of guns is unnecessary, unless you're part of the military or on the police force or something.

Originally posted by Irvine511
i suppose what i'm saying is that guns are 100% unique, and they must be treated as such; and the mere presence of a gun is more likely to make someone kill.

so, yes, guns help people kill people, more than a rock or knife or car can help you kill someone.

I don't agree with that-if someone really wants to kill somebody, they will have that urge no matter what it is they're holding in their hands. And if they have nothing in their hands, they'll use their actual hands to carry out the act.

Angela

 

[deep]

I don't agree with that-if someone really wants to kill somebody, they will have that urge no matter what it is they're holding in their hands. And if they have nothing in their hands, they'll use their actual hands to carry out the act.

Angela

Ok,

take a prison population

1000 inmates

after a year, say 3 murders

And if they have nothing in their hands, they'll use their actual hands to carry out the act.

i concede your point
if the question was
can we stop ALL killing?


take that same

prison population, 1000 inmates
one year and then add
say ---5 guns with ammo,

how many murders now?

what will you concede?

 

[Irvine511]

I don't agree with that-if someone really wants to kill somebody, they will have that urge no matter what it is they're holding in their hands. And if they have nothing in their hands, they'll use their actual hands to carry out the act.

here's a point of disagreement, then.

i think that if i really wanted to kill someone, and thought it through, i would come to the conclusion that a gun is the easiest way to kill someone. however, if i didn't have a gun, and still wanted to kill them, then i would try and find another way. but perhaps the unavailability of the gun is enough of a deterrant for me.

or perhaps i don't really want to kill anyone, but i get very upset with my spouse one night. we scream and yell and throw things and suddenly she (this is a hypothetical) grabs my gun and starts yelling at me, waving it around. it goes off. i'm dead.

or perhaps my 12 year old boy is being picked on at school. my mother and i are too busy working at Wal-Mart and getting paid shitty wages and no benefits to be able to be the kinds of parents he deserves. he's frustrated, and small for his age, and is sick of getting picked on at recess. he sees my gun. he's smart. i've told him not to touch it, i've told him about gun safety -- but he's smart. he takes the gun, brings it to school, and blows away the bullies. and then himself.

these are relatively common situations where the simple presence of a gun creates a solution to a problem -- death -- that would not have been available had a gun not been in a house.

i agree that there's a deeper problem here. absolutely. i also agree, and have said, that gun control is a treatment for the symptom, not the illness. however, there are some guns that have no business in anyone's homes, and the fact remains: guns are 100% unique.

and i brought up hunting clubs because you said earlier that most people who have guns use them for hunting. fine. keep them at the hunting club then!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

here's a point of disagreement, then.

i think that if i really wanted to kill someone, and thought it through, i would come to the conclusion that a gun is the easiest way to kill someone. however, if i didn't have a gun, and still wanted to kill them, then i would try and find another way. but perhaps the unavailability of the gun is enough of a deterrant for me.

It might be a deterrant for you. For other people, not so much.

Originally posted by Irvine511
or perhaps i don't really want to kill anyone, but i get very upset with my spouse one night. we scream and yell and throw things and suddenly she (this is a hypothetical) grabs my gun and starts yelling at me, waving it around. it goes off. i'm dead.

Again, though, if the gun's in a place where you can't just easily grab it, it's less of a problem. And sure, she could grab a gun and it could kill you, but she could also grab a knife, too, and in the heat of the moment, she stabs you. I've heard of that happening before, too. I know knives aren't used just for killing things, unlike guns, but they're still as much a danger in a house as a gun can be.

Originally posted by Irvine511
or perhaps my 12 year old boy is being picked on at school. my mother and i are too busy working at Wal-Mart and getting paid shitty wages and no benefits to be able to be the kinds of parents he deserves. he's frustrated, and small for his age, and is sick of getting picked on at recess. he sees my gun. he's smart. i've told him not to touch it, i've told him about gun safety -- but he's smart. he takes the gun, brings it to school, and blows away the bullies. and then himself.

My parents worked some really crappy low-paying jobs throughout their lives, and they still made sure to be the best parents they could be to my sister and me, and they were. You can have the crappiest paying job in the world, but you've still got kids to raise, you still have to be there for them as often as possible, you've still got to find ways to help them with any problems they're having, you've still got to teach them to not use a gun to solve their problems.

Besides that, so the guns are gone from the house-he can still use his fists to hurt those who are hurting him, or he can still bring other various weapons to school and go after the specific kid(s) that are bugging him. And he can kill himself by taking pills or hanging himself or something like that, too. There was a story in People magazine a long time back of an 8 year old girl whose parents constantly left her alone while they went off on their lavish vacations. The little girl was having some emotional problems, and she called her mom one day to talk to her. Her mom noticed the number on her phone, and yet didn't bother to pick it up, because she didn't think it was anything of major importance, as her daughter called her from time to time anyway. She comes home from her vacation, and goes to her daughter's room to let her know she's back. Her daughter is dead-she'd hung herself. Don't think that family had any guns, either, and they certainly weren't poor, as her mom was able to go on lavish vacations.

Originally posted by Irvine511
these are relatively common situations where the simple presence of a gun creates a solution to a problem -- death -- that would not have been available had a gun not been in a house.

And as indicated in my post, I think there's still other ways these problems can easily occur.

Originally posted by Irvine511
i agree that there's a deeper problem here. absolutely. i also agree, and have said, that gun control is a treatment for the symptom, not the illness. however, there are some guns that have no business in anyone's homes, and the fact remains: guns are 100% unique.

And I will agree that a simple handgun, or hunting rifles, would be more than enough for a family-I do think having assault rifles around in your home is going a bit overboard.

Originally posted by Irvine511
and i brought up hunting clubs because you said earlier that most people who have guns use them for hunting. fine. keep them at the hunting club then!

Oh, I know why you brought them up-I was just wondering if everyone who owns hunting guns also belongs to hunting clubs-nobody in my family hunts, and I don't have any friends whose family hunts, so I don't know if everyone who owns hunting guns also belong to hunting clubs, and so I was just curious. If someone who owns a hunting gun doesn't belong to a hunting club at the same time, though, then they really couldn't leave the thing there. But if they do belong to a hunting club, then yeah, I'd agree that that'd probably be the best place to keep the gun.

Also, deep, again, I'm not denying that if guns are around, there's a chance that someone will use the thing. I'm just saying that if someone really wanted to kill somebody, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or if they have some other weapon, they'll use it. If the jails were full of guys with knives, there'd be just as much chance for the same number of murders to occur as there would be if the jail was full of guys with guns. It doesn't take much to hurt someone with a knife-you don't have to stab someone in the back to kill them-you can swipe them across the face with a knife and that'd be enough to do some serious damage, and if you get them just right, and they lose enough blood, you could kill them. So if a guy wanted to take out a good number of people with a knife, he could find a way to do so. And if he had a bunch of knives on him, well, hey...

Besides that, most jails try to keep all the criminals from having any weapons of any kind anyway, be they guns or knives or anything else. They take away freakin' nail files there.

Angela

 

[Irvine511]

i agree with the spirit of your post, but i think a lot of it is wishful thinking.

what i'm saying is that a gun makes you more likely to kill someone than anything else. guns don't kill people, but they make it a heck of a lot easier for people to kill people.

anything else.

more guns = more dead kids

 

[deep]

anything else.

more guns = more dead kids

the point of my previous post

we can not stop killing

we can only lessen the number of victims

 

[all_i_want]

ok, we get it, there are MANY ways to kill people. you can stab them to death, but that would be kinda messy. a gun is so much easier!

right, we can not ban all lethal objects. but the ones we can, we must. guns are not like knives or baseball bats, they serve only one purpose, to kill!

also, i do see your point that if a high school student who has undergone commando training wanted to kill a bunch of his classmates, he could very well do so with a swiss army knife. but then, it just isnt as easy as killing them with a gun - not that spectacular either. and the worst part, you cant cause the same kind of damage, you'll have all these potential victims that might be able to run away, and you sure as hell are not gonna stand that!

lets talk about this the other way around. why do people need guns? constitutionally, against the king of england. but really, is it because the like shooting? is it for self protection? or is it because it is a device that gives them the ultimate decision making power - a decision between life and death. now, i dont see WHY people would need magnums or shotguns. could someone please tell this to me? is there any way to justify this?

gun control will not stop murders. it will only REDUCE them. the way i see it, less dead people is BETTER than more dead people! what is so hard to grasp about here?

there are non-lethal weapons out there. stuff like electric batons such. there are other means of protecting yourself and your family if you are feeling extremely threatened. dont tell me guns are simply for self protection. if we are talking about a civil society here, the citizens CAN NOT take law into their own hands. people who want guns want them because they are power obsessed megalomaniacs who think they cant go wrong.

as for people who see hunting as a 'sport' and need to keep their hunting rifles around just in case they see something nice to shoot, i have got two words for you



also, on another note, for those of you who havent watched the last daily show, something from NYT:
dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to purchase firearms in the US last year..

and as NRA president wayne lapierre told CBS, it is shameful, it is shameful that those suspects' right to bear arms is being threatened.

interviewer: if its good enough for FBI to put them on a watch list, why isnt it good enough for NRA to say dont sell them a gun?
lapierre: because what is a watch list after all?

 

[U2democrat]

guns suck.

 

[all_i_want]

guns suck.

yeah.. that kinda sums up the point i was trying to make

 

[U2democrat]

 

[sallycinnamon78]

The constitution entitles it.

With all due respect, Mac, the constituition entitles me to stand on my head and fart the national anthem if i wish - that doesn't mean I need to (or indeed plan to) do so.

Small rant (not aimed at you Mac, but just in general):

"It's my right to own a lethal weapon". No shit, Sherlock. I'm somewhat more concerned with a kids' right to go to school and not get murdered by some gun wielding psychopath. Kiss my arse, Charlton Heston, you worthless knob.

Not my most cogent, sensible, or balanced comment, I freely admit, but I stand by it nonetheless.

Please don't blame this on gun ownership! The kid stole his fathers police issued gun.

You guys always want to boil these things down to politics - it's really more about what was in this kid's head than anything else.

Well, you've got a good point there.

Anyways, what a tragedy.

Too right. I remember we had a huge hoo-hah over this back in 1996, in Dunblane, Scotland, when some psycho bastard shot sixteen 5 and 6 year old children, and one teacher. It was pretty horrendous to say the least, we were all stunned.

Prince Philip is a stupid bigmouthed brainless baboon at the best of times. 2 days after the shooting, he decided to announce that there was no point arguing about gun ownership, because the killer could have done the same damage with a baseball bat. WHAT THE FUCK?!!

Yes, you senile inbred imbecile, because the man could have killed 17 people just as quickly and easily with a bat, as with bullets. What a stupid, moronic point of view. Maybe if it had been a case of some nutter beating someone to death with a baseball bat, in the middle of nowhere, with nobody else around for miles, and no means of anyone escaping or getting help, then I might believe that point. In the real circumstances? Ridiculous suggestion.