Yahoo News reports
A gunman with a property dispute showed up at a Ross Township, Pa., supervisors' meeting and opened fire tonight, shooting apparently at random before he was subdued by two attendees, a witness and Monroe County officials said.
Three people were killed in the shooting rampage, and three others were wounded, including the shooter, county officials said. The suspect, who was under arrest tonight, was wounded when he was tackled by one of the township officials at the meeting.
Pennsylvania State Police identified the alleged shooter as Rockne Newell, 59, who they said had long-running property dispute with the town.
His property was condemned Thursday, and he hasn't been in his home since, according to police. He came to the meeting in a car with Texas license plates, police said.
After entering the building, Newell fired a long gun as he made his way through the building. He then retrieved a handgun from vehicle, reentered the building and started firing the handgun before being subdued.
Another formerly lawful gun owner, probably in possession of a concealed carry permit too. Another mass shooting in which the maniac had no concern about the gun-free status of the location. As they usually do, he went to the place of his grievance.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteStill don't know that, though he very well might not. If he had such a permit, why did he have to go back to his car to get his handgun?
"Another mass shooting in which the maniac had no concern about the gun-free status of the location."
ReplyDeleteI agree 110%.
When a maniac starts a rampage, good people MUST use FORCE to stop the maniac. The sooner that good people can bring decisive force to bear on the maniac, the lower the body count. And the fastest way that good people can bring decisive force to bear on a maniac is with a firearm.
Unarmed victims have to wait for an opportunity (which often never materializes) to respond. That takes several seconds to minutes ... ample time for a maniac to harm lots of people. A good citizen with a firearm, on the other hand, can respond almost immediately. I much prefer armed citizens who can respond almost immediately to an imaginary "gun free" zone that is not "gun free" once a maniac shows up.
So, we can continue to disarm good citizens with "gun-free" zones and guarantee success for maniacs who carry any weapon they want anywhere they want. Or, we can recognize that good citizens, who DON'T go on homicidal rampages, can stop a maniac almost immediately if they are armed. That last choice is the only sensible choice.
- TruthBeTold
You're conveniently forgetting that most of these "maniacs" are lawful gun owners who turn bad.
DeleteThat's the rare among the rare. The victims are generally good people who should have the ability to stop the attack.
DeleteAnyone can "turn bad" and misuse anything. The maniac who drove his car into the crowd on the pier in California a few days ago demonstrates that.
DeleteA person determined to harm other people can use almost anything to harm others. I already mentioned driving a car into a crowd. Or pour a box of grapefruit size rocks from an overpass into heavy rush hour traffic in a large city. A concealable container of gasoline and a match can wreak untold havoc in the right venue. And lest we forget what the sick b@$tards did in Boston with two pressure cookers and some fireworks. The possibilities are quite literally endless.
You cannot prevent psychos from harming people because you would have to ban everything ... hard objects, heavy objects, large objects, tiny objects, brittle objects, hot objects, flammable substances, chemicals, poisons, compressed gases, tanks, containers, etc. etc. etc. The only thing we can do is minimize how many people a psycho harms once they begin their attack. And that means stopping the attacker as fast as possible. Right now, an armed good guy/gal is the fastest way to stop a psycho. Police officers cannot possibly be everywhere. Only citizens -- the would be victims of an attacker -- are everywhere. Thus armed citizens are our best approach to minimizing the body count of an attacker.
- TruthBeTold
We can make it harder for them to own guns. But, being completely self-centered, you don't want that. It might inconvenience you too.
DeleteAs I've told you many times, Mikeb, your claim that your proposals would be only an inconvenience is false.
DeleteAgain with the lies? You don't know if this was a lawful gun owner, and you have no evidence to say that he had a carry license.
ReplyDeleteProbably a permit holder eh. Based on what?
ReplyDeleteIf no basis is needed for such speculation, does that mean that we get to engage in it too?
He is capable of such a crime.
ReplyDeleteThe person who tackled and injured the shooter should be arrested for assault. They had a duty to retreat, so unless they were cornered, this is not protected self-defense. This is the danger of reckless SYG laws.
ReplyDeleteOr so you say.
No, I didn't say that in this case. And, in case your inference was as ridiculous as I think it was, I don't say that's the case in every instance of self defense.
DeleteTS, you only have a duty to retreat if you have a gun. If you're unarmed, you're free to do as you choose. That's the gun control line.
DeleteWow - what was the police response time on this? Surely someone called 911 when the first shot rang out. He had time to go through the building twice and still had to be tackled by an unarmed civilian - at the township supervisor's meeting? Aren't we told that the police will respond in time to protect us and that there is no need for the common citizen to own a gun for self defense?
ReplyDeleteThis happened in one of the most gun-lovin' places in the country. Where were all the armed good guys? Why didn't one of them stop it before it got out of hand?
DeleteThe problem is that in most civilised societies, very rarely do you have the amount of mass shootings that you see in the United States (next on the list is Switzerland).
ReplyDeleteOnly in the US do you have so many incidences of mass shootings that they are common place.
You hardly see these in places Like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, England, France, Germany.
On the other hand, they are rather common in Afghanistan.
List updated as of 28 February 2013
DeleteFrom www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/Die-zwei-Seiten-der-Schweizer-Waffenkultur/story/18688042
The most serious violent crimes involving firearms in Switzerland
27 February 2013: Three people have been killed and seven injured during a shooting at the Kronospan wood processing plant in the town of Menznau.
3rd January 2013: A gunman killed three women and wounded two men in the Swiss village of Daillon
24th May 2011: In Schafhausen BE the 35-year-old Swiss tenants shoots in eviction from housing a 39-year-old policeman with his army pistol. Another policeman he injured his arm. The offender was released on medical grounds from the army, but was not properly disarmed.
8th September 2010: The 67-year-old Hans Peter Bieler Kneubühl resisting the eviction of his house and barricaded himself inside. When police anrückt, he shoots at a policeman and seriously wounded him. The pensioner has a whole arsenal of weapons but no firearms license.
30th April 2006: The former skier Corinne Rey-Bellet and her younger brother Alain in Les Crosets VS from estranged husband shot himself with his service pistol. Then the offender commits suicide.
29th March 2004: A 43-year-old farmer in Escholzmatt LU shoots his wife, his brother, his wife and the social director. Then he directed himself Tathintergrund were family problems.
27th September 2001: The 57-year-old Friedrich Leibacher shoots out of anger at the authorities in the Zug cantonal parliament 14 people with an assault rifle and a pump action shotgun, then he shoots himself
Second April 1993: A 54-year-old employee of the Berne Bedag computer science at work runs amok and shoots two people before killing himself. Apparently he had family problems and difficulties at work.
31st August 1990: An engaging in financial difficulties Zurich Bijoutier shoots in a shooting spree in Zurich and Rickenbach TG five people, including his wife and two children. He also wounded four people before killing himself.
16th April 1986: The head of the City of Zurich Building Inspection, Günther Tschanun shoots, after tensions at work in the Zurich building department four colleagues and wounded a fifth. He is sentenced to 20 years in prison.
This is merely a reprint from last time we discussed Switzerland. Is your point that mass shootings are rare in most places around the world?
Delete