Saturday, March 10, 2012

The Pittsburgh Clinic Shooting

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


A gunman opened fire inside a psychiatric clinic in Pittsburgh on Thursday in a shooting that left two people dead, including the gunman, and seven others injured, authorities said.
Oregon Live has the story on the shooter.

John F. Shick, 30, was identified by police as the man who fired several shots as he walked into the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. A therapist, Michael Schaab, 25, was killed and seven others were wounded. Police officers responding to the scene traded gunfire with Shick, killing him.
Shick, a 2004 Columbia University graduate with an engineering degree according to the local alumni association, lived in Portland from about September 2008 until August 2011, public records show. He lived in apartments in Southwest Portland, near Jeld-Wen Field and in Old Town.
While living in Portland, he officially changed "his name to William Huhnpere Schols Kan, according to electronics Oregon court records." Later he changed it back to John Fredenick Shick. Once he was arrested as a "male exhibiting strange behavior."

Do you think it's a good sign of freedom and liberty that a man like this can easily get a gun? As counter-intuitive as it sounds, wouldn't it better serve freedom if gun ownership were restricted to those fit and qualified?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

20 comments:

  1. Possession of firearms and/or weapons in University housing or on University premises is strictly prohibited. Included in the definition of firearms and weapons is: ammunition, bows and arrows, pellet/BB guns, paint ball guns, knives, sling shots, tazers, mace, num-chucks, and any item described as being an “offensive weapon” under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code

    This is your utopia. No weapons allowed, none, natta zip, zilch! How'd that gun-free zone work out for you? Seems it was more like a target rich environment. I wonder what the potential victims had to say about it.

    But he said they did not feel safe because there were doors with windows along adjacent walls.
    "The way the room was arranged, if he (the gunman) had gone to either window and would have seen us in there, he could have done whatever he wanted," Brant said.
    The group crouched in a corner, hoping the gunman wouldn't see them as he went past, Brant said. The men in the group decided on the spot that if the gunman entered the room, they would rush him.
    "We were kind of sitting ducks," Brant said. "Luckily, he didn't see us in there, and we didn't make eye contact with him."


    Thank you Brady Bunch for making this a safe, gun-free zone.


    As counter-intuitive as it sounds, wouldn't it better serve freedom if gun ownership were restricted to those fit and qualified?

    I agree! There should be mandatory firearms safety classes in school and a firearms proficiency tests along with final exams in High School.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what about mental health screening?

      Delete
  2. Bill Baldwin"

    Thanks for regurgitating the same, tired, oft debunked arglebaffle that passes for reasoned argument amongst gunzloonz.

    Less gunz = less chance for emotionally/mentally unbalanced, stone criminals and momentarily enraged individuals to get their hands on them. I know that you guyz can't do the math, but there it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't understand the reality Demoncommie. Unlawful criminals are going to get guns. No amount of gun control in the world is going to stop them and you're living in a drug induced haze if you think it will.

      All gun control does is punish law abiding citizens.

      Delete
    2. Mister G, that's not what you say about England. According to you geniuses, gun control worked so well there the criminals has to resort to knives. No, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

      Delete
    3. And as we've pointed out to you before, Great Britain had far fewer guns, both in number and per capita, than the United States. Legal gun owners had been licensed, and their guns were registered for decades. Laying aside the question of rights, as a practical matter, what worked over there won't work here.

      Delete
    4. "as a practical matter, what worked over there won't work here."

      That's assuming anything has worked over there. Murder rate unchanged and violent crime is up over there. Sure less of the crime involves guns, but is that any solace?

      Delete
    5. Worked there in the sense of taking guns away from law-abiding people. It's a bad goal, of course, and ineffective at stopping crime.

      Delete
  3. The world is not neatly divided between law-abiding citizens and "unlawful criminals" (not to be confused with lawful criminals). Many gun crimes are committed on impulse. These are the ones that gun control laws can prevent.

    This particular case involved at least one stolen gun, so this particular crime probably would not have been prevented.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Short of removing all guns from private ownership, how are you going to stop the person who will commit a violent act on impulse?

      Delete
    2. Greg, Norma's right and you know it. This is the gray area I'm always talking about. Total removal of all guns is not the only option. That's another exaggeration/lie you keep using.

      Delete
    3. psychological testing isn't the answer either. This shooter spent time in a mental health facility. Either something was missed or hadn't developed yet. I suspect this shooter had more of a medical problem than a mental health problem. I hope they do an autopsy.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, Norma's wrong, and so are you. Your side thinks that there's some magic formula that will identify dangerous people. My side knows that this is impossible.

      But will you please look at all the proposals for gun control, all the denial of a right to guns, and other such calls on this site and add everything up? If you do, you'll see that the practical effect of the whole schmeer is to keep guns from private citizens. Don't call me a liar until you look to your own assertions.

      Delete
    5. You're misrepresenting me again. I feel there's a magic formula that would identify SOME of the dangerous people. It's called proper mental health screening and stricter qualifications.

      Delete
    6. Are you familiar with the concept of displacement? Your boss pisses you off, but since you can't attack him without getting fired, you go home and kick your dog.

      That's what you propose for gun control. Punish the people who do no wrong because there are a few in this society who are crazy or evil.

      Delete
    7. That's not it at all, Greg. Besides, it's not punishment to require resonable restrictions.

      Delete
    8. Taking rights away from good citizens is a punishment.

      Delete
  4. First of all, this man did not possess these guns legally - they were both stolen. Sp, requiring a person to be fit would not have prevented this crime. Or so many other random acts of violence. Most violent crimes committed with guns involve stolen firearms. Heavier regulation in regards to mental capacity wouldn't really have an effect on those numbers.

    Keep in mind that this building, while it is in an area of the University of Pittsburgh "campus", the building itself is not primarily a campus building. If you are familiar with the are you will know that none of this actually applies:

    "*Possession of firearms and/or weapons in University housing or on University premises is strictly prohibited. Included in the definition of firearms and weapons is: ammunition, bows and arrows, pellet/BB guns, paint ball guns, knives, sling shots, tazers, mace, num-chucks, and any item described as being an “offensive weapon” under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code*"

    Technically the building is part of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (NOT to be confused with University of Pittsburgh the institution itself). So that doesn't apply here, either.

    That being said, law abiding citizens, AND even Police Officers must check their guns for holding at the front counter in that building because it is a psychiatric hospital. UPMC security officers aren't even armed in that building. They don't even have batons. Seriously. In fact, most of their facilities have unarmed security, with the exception of Children's hospital (they have actual police).

    This entire situation was, pardon the language, a cluster fuck. It could have turned out much worse, had it not been for the actions of the University of Pittsburgh Police who responded. UPMC needs to look at its security policies, and make serious changes. If I were one of the victims, or a family member, I would be visiting with a wrongful death/injury attorney right now. All that being said - I don't believe changes to gun ownership laws wouldn't have affected the outcome of this situation, since the shooter possess the guns illegally, and other private citizens with permits to carry who may have been in the building would have been disarmed anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amanda, You're absolutely right. In cases where the guns are stolen, no amount of mental health screening or background checks would prevent it. But you know what would? Safe storage laws and holding the gun owners who too easily allow their guns to slip into the criminal world responsible.

      Licensing, registration, safe storage, background checks on private sales, those are the things that would work.

      Delete
    2. Technically the building is part of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (NOT to be confused with University of Pittsburgh the institution itself). So that doesn't apply here, either

      Thank you for educating me.

      Delete