Except that to the rest of, such justification is not present, not very often, not with any consensus. Gun nuts will excuse almost any shooting, or hold it up as some kind of justification for their guns. Mostly, we're better off without them than with them. I noticed one of the local witnesses states that 'this takes place in 3rd world countries, not here'. No, these shootings take place here more often than a lot of other places, including some third world countries. Although we're headed that way, with the decline of our middle class, and the growing gap between the mega-wealthy 2% and the rest of us....
From MSNBC.com:
4 dead, 6 wounded in shooting at Nevada restaurant
Two of the dead identified as National Guardsmen
Emergency personnel respond to a shooting at an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, Nev. on Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011.
CARSON CITY, Nevada — A gunman with an automatic rifle opened fire at an IHOP restaurant in Nevada's capital on Tuesday, killing two uniformed National Guardsmen and wounding six people and himself in a hail of gunfire during the morning breakfast hour, authorities and witnesses said.
A third person was killed in addition to the servicemembers. The gunman died at the hospital three hours after the shooting, Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong said.
It wasn't immediately clear whether the gunman had any connection with the military or the guard, said Nevada National Guard Sgt. Mike Getten. He said guard members were meeting at the restaurant.
Extra security measures were put place on state and military buildings in northern Nevada as a safety precaution.
A bullet-damaged window of the IHOP restaurant in Carson City, Nev.
The sheriff said investigators believe only the one shooter was involved.
The conditions and names of the victims were not released. Some of the victims were transported from the scene by helicopter, and others left by ambulance.
The incident took place at the Carson City International House of Pancakes on South Carson Street.
Ralph Swagler, owner of another restaurant near the IHOP told the Reno Gazette-Journal that he witnessed the 9 a.m. shooting. Swagler said he saw a man wearing a red shirt and black shorts pull up to the IHOP in blue minivan. The man then pulled out a rifle and shot a man on a motorcycle, then walked inside IHOP and started shooting, Swagler told the newspaper.
The man then fired several shots at other businesses in the area, including the Locals Barbecue and the H&R Block.
"This happens in Third-World countries, not here," Swagler, owner of Locals Barbecue, told the newspaper.
The minivan was registered locally, Furlong said.
Local and state police and FBI agents descended on the scene on the main street in the state capital, also called U.S. 395. Yellow tape surrounded the parking lot near a Kohl's department store in a shopping complex across the street from a casino and hotel.
A business in the area told NBC station KRNV TV that nearby businesses have been put on lockdown.
"We just heard basically a string of gunshots, probably 5 to 7 back to back to back to back and then there was probably 30 second delay then an automatic weapon fired, probably 20 to 30 shots," said Gary Gamba, general sales manager at Michael Hohl Motors, which is across the street from the IHOP.
This is a breaking news story.
Added by Laci:
Added by Laci:
We can't forget the usual comment from the progun side that an armed citizen would stop this sort of thing. The Record-Courier (Gardnerville, NV) mentions:
Ralph Swagler, owner of the adjacent Locals BBQ restaurant, told the Nevada Appeal that he saw the gunman pull up in a minivan, get out and begin firing an automatic rifle at the IHOP. The gunman then reloaded and went inside, and Swagler said he heard more gunshots inside the restaurant...Not that I totally blame him for erring on the side of caution given that he was outgunned.
Swagler said he had a handgun and considered opening fire on the shooter, but he didn't want to engage a gunman who was armed with a fully automatic weapon.
Another update by Laci:
According to CarsonNow.org:
There was one gun used, it was an AK-47 assault rifle, ATF is determining whether it was fully automatic or semi-auto.
I haven't found any other news report that the gunman used an automatic rifle. I wonder if MSNBC has a different source or if they are just Jadin' it?
ReplyDeleteAlso, none mention if the gunman committed suicide or not. I guess we'll get more details as they develop.
Try News 10 and The Record-Courier:
ReplyDelete"A gunman armed with an automatic rifle opened fire on and inside an IHOP restaurant Tuesday morning in Carson City"
"Ralph Swagler, owner of the adjacent Locals BBQ restaurant, told the Nevada Appeal that he saw the gunman pull up in a minivan, get out and begin firing an automatic rifle at the IHOP. The gunman then reloaded and went inside, and Swagler said he heard more gunshots inside the restaurant."
I like this from the Courier-record:
ReplyDeleteSwagler said he had a handgun and considered opening fire on the shooter, but he didn't want to engage a gunman who was armed with a fully automatic weapon.
So much for the armed citizen stopping this sort of thing.
Fox news now saying that the gunman was hospitalized from a self-inflicted wound. MSNBC is still the same as dog gone's initial post.
ReplyDeleteABC says that the gunman has died.
ReplyDeleteFWM, I think you're a closet journalist.
ReplyDelete"FWM, I think you're a closet journalist."
ReplyDeleteNah, I am too opinionated and don't check facts. On second thought, maybe I would be a good journalist.
Wait, did you just lump "Castle Doctrine" shootings into that category? People defending themselves from violent threats? Also, your blog post title is killing itself if you want to compare what happened in NY in 48 hours with their myriad of gun laws that just don't seem to be obeyed by criminals. I know, it's unfathomable that criminals don't abide by the law. FYI, it is a very low probability that the firearm was automatic. It is most likely an AK variant in semi-auto.
ReplyDeleteAK-47.
ReplyDelete45er, we have the description from an eye witness that said:
ReplyDeletehe didn't want to engage a gunman who was armed with a fully automatic weapon.
Were you there? He was and he was an "armed citizen".
There is the possibility this was an illegal conversion.
Try googling "ak47 conversion manual" for an eye-opener
After all, you lot like to point out that criminals aren't too bothered with laws. Why bother with laws about illegal full-auto conversions?
Well, most of the legal semi-autos aren't really "AK-47s" which is why I said "variant". It's most likely something called a WASR or AKM. I'm not being anal, just informative. Most owners call them AKs or AK-47 anyway since the term has become so ubiquitous.
ReplyDelete#1 eye witnesses generally don't understand half of what they hear/see. Ask any police officer. I can fire an AR-15 on semi and the lay ear would think it was fully auto. I would bet money this isn't fully auto. Most people have never heard full-auto in person. Trust me, being an armed citizen doesn't mean he can tell the difference between semi and full. I also agree with his decision to stand down. He made the right call. Googling a "how to" and actually accomplishing a functioning full-auto conversion are apples and oranges. I do know what it takes and it takes a lot more than the tools in your garage and a manual off of the internet. That said, there is the possibility that he figured all that out and did it for his crazed exit from this earth, but I think you'll find when the facts shake out that is not the case.
ReplyDelete45er, Thanks for your comments. Please check out my post this morning about the NY shootings. I mentioned the very thing you commented on, the fact that criminals don't obey laws.
ReplyDeleteIt's about time your side drops that one from the argument. It's been debunked for what it is, a bullshit attempt to characterize our position as silly and non-sensical.
Those descriptions belong to your side, I'm afraid.
Whether the weapon is an actual AK-47, one of the first world manufacturers' knock-offs or a third world mudhut gunsmith's work is not really an issue; unless one is more interested in bogging down the conversation in minutiae because the basic argument--that there are WAY too many idiots and crazy people with guns in this country--is already lost by the gunzloonz.
ReplyDeleteAutomatic,schmautomatic; this youtuber:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wip6fvA10Q
is fairly convincing evidence that for at least some* people hazzin' teh gunz go fazt is important. Aimed fire, not so much.
It appears that as of this morning the toll in NYC and it's environs is 46 persons shot since the start of the Labor Day weekend. Since it's an article of faith with the gunzloonz that proliferation of gunz is not the problem in criminals (convicted or not) easily obtaining them then I'm sure we will find that all of the weapons purchased were made in illegal gunsmithing shops in the five boroughs or that they were stolen from people who had properly secured them.
* Like Mikeb302000, I think that the %age is somewhat higher than 0.0001
45er, I don't think it really matters whether the gun was full- or semi-auto in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe victims sure don't care about that.
If the "AK" was semi-auto it would still produce a fairly high rate of fire and not have the muzzle climb associated with full-auto.
As for what sort of AK variant it happened to be, that is unimportant in the long run as well. Democommie has it right when he says:
whether the weapon is an actual AK-47, one of the first world manufacturers' knock-offs or a third world mudhut gunsmith's work is not really an issue; unless one is more interested in bogging down the conversation in minutiae
According to CarsonNow.org:
ReplyDeleteThere was one gun used, it was an AK-47 assault rifle, ATF is determining whether it was fully automatic or semi-auto.
This should help:
ReplyDeleteJournalists guide to firearms identification
Mike, you're absolutely right that we agree on that. By "my side" I'm going to assume you mean law-abiding gun owners. Those are the only people I'm aware of that fight against more and more laws to disarm them. Do you know why? Because we're the only ones that follow the law and we know more laws are just going to mean criminals still have the guns they have and law-abiding gun owners won't. Also, you and I agree that criminals don't obey them. Let's take a look at NY and the felon thugs doing the shooting from beginning to end:
ReplyDelete1. theft of a firearm
2. possession of stolen property
3. possession of a firearm by a felon (or minor in some cases)
4. illegal possession of a firearm in NY city limits
5. possession of a concealed weapon
6. discharge of a firearm in city limits
7. reckless conduct
8. attempted murder and/or murder in the 1st
Tell me where your law fits in that list and how it would have stopped the criminal? NY could have enforced laws 1 - 5 and it wouldn't have happened. So, if we add a new law to the top of the list, it would just be 6 laws the criminal breaks (and the law-abiding citizen has to obey). That makes total sense. Go out and enforce the existing laws, take the guns from the gangs that have felony records. You'll hear applause from my side. But that's just too hard, so we'll pass more ineffective laws.
I'm not sure how to respond to demo since it just seems to be a general rant lumping everything into one category.
Laci, however, has brought us back to a point I was hoping would be made. It doesn't matter that it was an AKM, AK-47, full-auto, semi-auto, Glock, Hi Point, bottle of gas rag and a match, or a bunch of guys with a can of gas like the casino in Mexico. Crazy people are out there and will do crazy things. You can't regulate yourself into safety. You can only take your own personal defense seriously.
FWM This should help:
ReplyDeleteJournalists guide to firearms identification
That's almost as bad as listening to a criminal talk about them.
Especially the "glock" part.
45er, You are wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe US tops the world in mass shootings for only one reason, the availability of guns, and the guns that are available provide a lot of firepower.
How often have you heard about a mass killing that was perpetrated by someone using a knife or sword?
The problem isn't in the end user, but the fact that there is money to be made selling guns to disqualified people.
There will always be a source of guns if there is no penalty for those people who willing sell to disqualified persons.
The ultimate problem is that the source of crime guns is kept in the dark. We don't know if the prime source is direct sale, straw purchase, or theft.
Your side doesn't want to impose penalties for people who "fail" to report "lost or stolen" guns within a 48 hour period. It's easy for a gunrunner to say the guns were lost or stolen when he goes off and sells them illegally.
the Ultimate point is, 45er, if you want the right, you need to accept responsibilites. And part of those responsibilities is that you need to account for where your firearms are.
It would also be nice if part of those responsibilites were that you kept your firearms secured when not in use.
So, yes, we can legislate a society which is safer through better accountability of firearms to make sure they don't end up in the hands of felons, insane, and other disqualified persons.
"So, yes, we can legislate a society which is safer through better accountability of firearms to make sure they don't end up in the hands of felons, insane, and other disqualified persons."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that society only exists in Fantasyland. I know you believe that if we banned all guns, the world would be all buttercups and unicorn kisses but we have to live in the real world and it is a sick and dangerous place full of sick and dangerous people.
Cut the bullshit! I'm sick of it.
ReplyDeleteNo, You can't zero out mass shooting.
But, you can seriously reduce the incidence of them happening.
Doing nothing has resulted in more of these shootings happening in the US. because of the availability of firearms.
I know that you find this acceptable, but others do not.
dog gone, I love the slippery slope you like to send other people down, then will probably scream rights violations when lawmakers decide that idea would work great in other areas. Everyone I know owns large safes. That is our decision to safeguard our property. We also lock our doors and have alarms. At what point is it a property owners "responsibility" to be charged with a crime because someone broke into their locked house? When they kicked down the locked door? Because a handgun was in a small gunvault (which can be stolen and broken open later) for secure access, not a large safe? When is it time to start locking up grandma because she doesn't secure her prescription drugs in a bolted fireproof safe and some teenagers break into her house and OD on them? This is the problem when you target inanimate objects. You say "the problem isn't the end user" and that's exactly where I say all of your theory is bunk. The criminals using them are exactly the problem. It's just easier to violate the rights of people that obey the law because they're easier to see.
ReplyDeleteFWM is correct, our society exists because people in general aren't scumbags, not because the government "makes" us do or not do things.
Laci - the tool will change. When you open your eyes to violence visited on people in the world you will find that when you stop thinking in terms of only firearms, you will see bombs, machetes, clubs, and rocks.
Dog gone: “How often have you heard about a mass killing that was perpetrated by someone using a knife or sword?”
ReplyDeleteOr bomb?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-bombing-20110908,0,2641084.story
And staplers! We can't forget how unsafe staplers are!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you are denying that these incidents happen far too frequently in the US because they can!
You want to change the subject to other things.
The Second Amendment is about STANDING ARMIES, not GUNS!
We have a right not to be SHOT!
Of course, you want your guns because you believe incorrectly that they keep you safe. They don't.
Stop trying to change the subject--this is about guns. Too many people are being shot and you can't change the song.
It's "I Don't Like Mondays", Cheryl Wheelers "if it were up to me", "The Devil's Right Hand". on infinite repeat!
We're tired of your guns.
I would like to say that one of the problem with firearms is that they are desinged to kill and injure. That is their function.
ReplyDeleteThey are an inanimate object used as killing and maiming tools. That's what a weapon does.
And they optimally operate at a distance to injure or kill.
Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source).
If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns. In America guns start out legal. Then they enter the black market one way or the other. So if you have less legal guns then there will less guns entering the black market and consequently less outlaws owning guns. Think about it.
Nations with very strict gun control laws such as the UK, Australia, and Japan have much lower gun crime rates than the US. The most probable explanation for this is that criminals in the US have much greater access to guns due to less gun control. Saying "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" is very misleading and completely absurd. If you outlaw guns, less outlaws will have guns. Would you rather have more or less outlaws owning guns? The answer is obvious.
Seriously. You're taking that stand on the Second Amendment? Well, I'll just say that history and a load of judicial interpretation including SCOTUS might disagree with you, but what do they know? After all, after the war against a standing army, the first thing the writers of the Bill of Rights wanted to do was arm a standing army.
ReplyDeleteYou do have the right not to be shot, but not by infringing on others' rights that have done nothing wrong. If you can't see that, then you need to seriously examine the framework of this country.
The problem is that you are soooo focused on taking away a right over one object that you just can't see past the future consequences of your own actions. You beg the government to take away the rights of one law-abiding group and then think they'll stop there? You are sorely mistaken.
As for DG I can only say that this is the exact reason gun owners fight tooth and nail. We all know your end game regardless of the words you use like "common sense". We watch and read and know that the end goal is complete confiscation. Before you spit a huge faux surprised reaction, just re-read your post. So, the answer is that you all want a complete ban and it's just not in the cards. The awesome thing is that we're winning and we know it.
45er dicks up and sez:
ReplyDeleteSeriously. You're taking that stand on the Second Amendment? Well, I'll just say that history and a load of judicial interpretation including SCOTUS might disagree with you,
How well do you know your Declaration of Independence?
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
I think you will find there are mountains of historic background that hold the Second Amendment deals with standing armies--just look at some ofthe contemporary versions found in State Constitutions.
I wouldn't push that the Second Amendment is about gun rights unless you enjoy showing yourself up to be an idiot.
It's a big theme in Anglo-American History, but you want to neglect all that. Standing Armies and Civilian Control of the Military were pretty important issues.
But, you're an ignorant person, 45er, despite your bullshit.
Anyway, Heller-McDonald says registration and restrictions on the sale of firearms are A-OK.
So,stop the whining and bullshit because we don't believe it and are sick of it.
Or are you nothing but a weak,coward without your gun, 45er?
And now comes the most typical ending to just about every debate with anti-rights people. The petty, personal attacks. It really does show the class from the pulpit that you spit your venom. It just always seems to end that way.
ReplyDeleteIdiot? You're saying that the first 10 Amendments that stated all individual rights and limited government, that just one was put in there to limit personal rights and empower the government? Good luck selling that duck.
And with that, I will leave you with your class act, Laci. When the personal insults come out because someone cannot have a reasonable debate, that's when I depart. Laci will probably call me a coward for that and the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows her that INDIVIDUAL right, but the truth is I exit when people can't hack it and start throwing insults.
You know that question: Remember that time with you changed someone's mind by arguing with them on the internet?
Yeah, me either.
No,petty attack,I think you will find that if you actually would think and read the primary source material on the Second Amendment, that I am correct.
ReplyDeleteBut, you can't think for yourself, you have to parrot what you are told.
Can't back up your assertions with facts--can you, 45er?
Bye, 45er, I won't miss you.
But watch out what you say to people who know what they are talking about.
You can't let your mind be confused with facts, can you, 45er?
but the truth is I exit when people can't hack it and start throwing insults.
ReplyDeleteNaw,the truth is,45er,that you leave when you are shown up for not knowing what you are talking about.
You can't back up your assertions.
I guess you must be called a coward a lot.
I know, I won't change your mind since it's made up and no amount of facts will change it.
But, you're not my audience,45er, I couldn't care less about your opinion.
It's the people who are tired of hearing the bullshit your side spouts and want a change.
They need to hear the truth.
Even your own side provides it because they know people like you don't question:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
Even when your own side hands you the truth, you prefer lies, 45er.
I present to you again, your class act - Laci. You guys can have that.
ReplyDelete45er, it's not just because I say so, it's because all these experts say so.
ReplyDeleteHere's a reading list for you to visit before take the position you did:
* Willaim S. Fields and David T. Hardy, The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History, 35 Am. J. Legal Hist. 393 (1991).
* Cress, Lawrence Delbert Cress. Citizens in Arms: The Army and the Militia in American Society to the War of 1812
* Cunliffe, Marcus, Soldiers and Civilians: The Martial Spirit in America, 1775-1865
* Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard
* Millett, Allan R. & Maslowski, Peter, For The Common Defense: A Military History of the United States of American: Revised Edition
* Riker, William H, Soldiers of the States
* One of the few Law Review articles discussing the historical militia is "The Militia Clause of the Constitution" by Frederick Wiener 54 Harvard Law Review 181(1940).
* See also Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I (Of the Expences of the Sovereign or Commonwealth), PART I: 16-27 (Of the Expence of Defence) for a critique of the miltia system from 1775.
* Also, David Chandler & Ian Beckett, The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army (ISBN: 978-0198691785) has a section on the Amateur Military Tradition (I.E., the Militia).
* Weatherup, Roy, Standing Armies And Armed Citizens: An Historical Analysis of The Second Amendment, 2 Hastings Const. L.Q. 961-1001 (1975)
* Schwoerer, Lois G. "No Standing Armies!" The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England
We are disagreeing because we are operating from a different basis of facts. Your basis is not as well informed.
After you have done some reading, we can have a more in depth discussion and have a better chance for a meeting of the minds.
And yes, I really have read all these books I recommended for you.
ReplyDeleteWhat, 45er is leaving? Why is it that the sockpuppet brigade keeps coming in, making a mess and then scuttling back into the shadows?
ReplyDeleteThe video I linked to earlier shows a guy blasting off a 75 round drum of ammo in rapid fire single shot mode if I have it right. It takes all of about 30 seconds. To those who get the unwanted thrill of having one or more rounds of the standard 7.62 x 39mm round used in the AK-47 probably give somewhat less than a flying fuck about the weapon's cycle rate.
45er, My idea is you can't take a particular crime and say what law would have prevented it. That's because no law will prevent all. But by working in the other direction, and admitting that all the guns start out legally owned, you can easily ask what laws will prevent guns from flowing into the criminal world.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm always talking about. Laws that would help lawful gun owners ensure that their stuff doesn't get into the wrong hands.
But, Mike, they don't care about guns getting into the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteNote the resistance to a commonsense law that lost or stolen guns are reported to the police within 48 hours.
Seriously, wouldn't an honest person report the loss?
Registration--same thing, probably because they would have to undergo serious background checks.
Background checks--serious ones, not showing a driver's licence, but the old fashioned waiting periods.
Too many drawbacks to them. Guns are no longer impulse purchases. There's the possibility that old arrest would be found, or that the person is too crazy to own the gun in the first place turns up.
So, we still have a system where guns haemorrage (arterially bleed?)into the black market.
"Note the resistance to a commonsense law that lost or stolen guns are reported to the police within 48 hours.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, wouldn't an honest person report the loss?"
What, and not go after the perp themselves? Nah, don't want to rely on the jackbooted thugs of the nannystate to do that.
I think you guys are right.
ReplyDelete