1} Will this play into the hands of the gun grabbers, the 2nd Amendment defenders (guess you can tell where my sympathies lay, eh?), or not materially affect the debate?
Hey the gun grabbers are always out there waiting for any excuse to disarm us all. In reality what we need are more guns on the street -= carried of course by law-abiding citizens. Thus increasing the chance that the shooters will get some return fire if a officer is not nearby.

"We're kindly asking families to search for a way to forgive," said consortium leader Buba Roth, an ethnic Serb who arrived in the United States in the 1990s after fleeing bloody conflict in the Balkans.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070214/ts_al...es_070214191205

There is something about this entire article that is upsetting. Nothing is said about the families who lost one or more family members as a result of this frightful act by this Bosnian teenager. WHY IS IT ALWAYS THE JOB OF THE POOR VICTIMS TO FORGIVE, FORGIVE, FORGIVE right away? I realize that it is important to forgive, of course, but what about a little compassion here for those who lost loved ones?

"Roth said late Tuesday that Talovic's case highlighted the sense of isolation often felt by refugees. 'We came to Utah to be Americans,' Roth said. "Instead, we're isolated and afraid."
To be honest, that comment makes me want to say "Too Bad!"

We really have no idea yet what the REAL story is on this kid. It may eventually be revealed that this teenager fancied himself a "suicide bomber" type, who knows! The thing is let's not bend over backwards too far by trying to understand him and what type of a childhood he had when he has for all intents literally murdered our citizens.

"You know I think the FBI would disagree with you. Understanding in a situation like this does not automatically equate into empathy, passion or forgiveness. Moreover I think understanding in a situation like this would be paramount overall more so then attempting to maintain some state of not understanding."

I AM SURE THAT THE FBI WILL INVESTIGATE, and perhaps even "understand". My point is that, as American citizens, we are entitled to a little OUTRAGE aren't we? "....Give me your tired, your poor; Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...." means something quite different when a person accepts this invitation and
subsequently murders our citizens! Just a thought.......

Bad Guy starts shooting people in the mall. Citizen A pulls his gun out and instead of running and hiding, decides to be a hero. Citizen B feels the same way, and comes barreling around the corner. He sees the Bad Guy and citizen A with guns, starts blazing away at both of them

I am for reasonable restrictions and regulations regarding handguns. There should be no concealing weapons.

I don't see these opinions as being out of step with the Second Amendment, either. If you read any contemporary literature of the time, the words "keep and bear" and "arms" were used in a specific context. "Keeping" in the sense of keeping a public armory, and "arms" meaning weapons used to make war. I do wish the authors would have worded it more clearly, but there ya go.

I don't see these opinions as being out of step with the Second Amendment, either. If you read any contemporary literature of the time, the words "keep and bear" and "arms" were used in a specific context. "Keeping" in the sense of keeping a public armory, and "arms" meaning weapons used to make war. I do wish the authors would have worded it more clearly, but there ya go.

It seems you're jumping the gun here - my first reaction to this was that the names of the victims probably hadn't been released yet

- or that the media were showing some respect by not interviewing the victims' families.

I think it goes without saying that the same people who call for forgiveness are of course compassionate about the victims.

Why would it be about Jihad? Oh wait, you're still understanding that word from some "Muslims are Monsters" source.

It is natural for people to want to seek reasons for others' aberrant behavior. We all want to be able to classify such actions as having an unusual source - that we or our children are far away from. So we want to see this kid as mentally disturbed, the product of an isolating environment

They will be the same kinds of stories that explored the "why" of Columbine or any other tragedy.

Dishonest? No.... Do you think they are really "digging it up?"

V
However the reality is that there is a mass shooting in the US every week. It is so common that unless the numbers of dead get quite high

Well, apart from pretending gun control advocated are 'gun grabbers' (How bout I refer to gun ownership advocated as 'gun nuts'?)

EDIT to add: By the way, the offhand throwing in of 'muslim' and 'jihad' here is absurd. This is an 18 year old Bosnian immigrant, we have NO idea what his religion is. Is he Muslim because he's Bosnian originally? Bad news for the 'leap to conclusion' types, Muslims account for only 40% of the population in Bosnia, followed closely by Orthodox Christians and RC.

But even if he WAS a Muslim... how many school massacres and mass shooting in the last decage (and there have been MANY) were perpetrated by White protestants? Thats right, almost ALL of them! So a single Bosnian teenager shoots some people in a Mall and he's part of 'Jihad'? Please.

Go ahead, at least I'm honest about my biases. Perhaps I should have said "totalitarian idjits" to be more accurate.

Why the refusal to consider the possibility? A single Muslim college student starts running his fellow students on campus, couldn't possibly be jihad? I realize that its a challenge for you to wrap your "open" mind around this, but sometimes events really do fit the stereotype.

As for all your puking about gun nuts, he was stopped because a citizen had a gun.

When you make ludicrous statements like “mass shooting every week” you should expect a challenge. Please document say the weeks of December – show me the “mass killing” for each week.

There was another mass shooting, the very same day, why didn't you identify that as a possible source of terrorism?

Come on Bikerdad, this isn't about 'ruling out possibilities', this is about you leaping to the conclusion that Muslim = terrorist with no evidence whatsoever.

The ones I read say the heavily armed teen with multiple guns was eventually shot and killed by a police officer, not some armed good-ole-boy carrying his contitutional handgun. And the fact that he was eventually stopped by a man with a gun is (I am sure) great comfort to the various people shot to death by the heavily armed 18 year old...

Gee, I think you'll find the answer in the very first line of the very first post.

Is it? I've already presented multiple possibilities. Have you even bothered to look? Or is "nope, we can't even examine whether or not this is jihad" your normal modus operandi? You haven't bothered to present anything about this kid. You don't know that he's pulled knives on other people. You don't know that he has a juvenile record. You don't know that it appears that he is an alienated garden variety uber-punk, because, apparently, you haven't been willing to risk finding out that he might be a jihadist. You haven't been willing to do the legwork that could so easily have cast great doubt upon my "conclusion." I never made that conclusion, I simply raised the possibility, and asked "why isn't this being asked?" All you've done is responded with your own conclusions lacking any evidence to back them up.

You have been more willing to argue against the question than simply find an answer. What does that say? If you're approaching the topic in this fashion, why should we believe the media is any different?

The individual who killed him (police officers responding to the 911 call{s}) was acting as an agent of the state, the individual who stopped his rampage was not acting as an agent of the state. Since the State of Utah is likely to award the latter chap, my guess is that the people who weren't shot to death by Suljemen do take great comfort that an "armed good-ole-boy" carrying his constitutional handgun was on the scene.

The individual who killed him (police officers responding to the 911 call{s}) was acting as an agent of the state, the individual who stopped his rampage was not acting as an agent of the state. Since the State of Utah is likely to award the latter chap, my guess is that the people who weren't shot to death by Suljemen do take great comfort that an "armed good-ole-boy" carrying his constitutional handgun was on the scene.

What part of "well regulated" does the gun idjits not understand anyway?

We have high rates of violence ...

snipping assorted questionable justifications as to why guns have no link to gun violence, justifications which exist in plenty of other countries who DON'T have the same gun violence problems...

The first part (referring to the well regulated state militias) is a reference to one rationale for the amendment in the first place.... it doesn't change the meaning and the MEAT of amendment and the bottom line which is "the rights of the people to to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

But, the left have managed to do an end run around this section of the constitution using the time-proven trick of appointing members of the judiciary who disagree and thus rewrite the constitution to their liking.

Will the left use this tragedy to push for more "gun control"? No question about it. It's their pattern.

...in your opinion. Why does this amendment, and NO OTHER amendment, have a caveat in front of it? If what you assert is true, why bother with the caveat at all? Are you asserting the Founding Fathers were just wasting words on a meaningless sentence with no significance? Why would they need to explain WHY this one amendment was necessary, when they did that for NONE of the others?

Why bother referring to a 'well regulated militia' in terms of the right to bear arms if there was not some significance to the fact that it was a 'well regulated militia'? 'Gun nuts' seem to love to ignore the first part of the amendment as if it did not exist, or rationalise it away as useless verbiage; quite an insult to the drafters of the constitution if you ask me.

Yes, it is a time honoured trick, used extensively by BOTH the left and the right, please do not try and pretend otherwise. The far-right loves to attack 'activist judges', but really the only issue they have is that they are activist for the other side...

Using repeated and frequent gun massacres to push for gun control? How insidious of them! How DARE they try and draw a link between guns and gun violence?


In the end, its irrelevant anyways. The US as a whole has decided that frequent massacres, school shootings and a gun homocide rate TRIPLE the rest of the first world is an acceptable price to pay for having unregistered guns in your house. If that is the butcher's bill you are willing to pay, then so be it. But don't try and pretend there is no link whatsoever between the two in an attempt to justify your position.

4. Link between gun ownership and gun violence? Well, then explain why the homicide rate in Switzerland is so low? They have the highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. Crime rates are the result of the rates of criminals.

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.


But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

Why the caveat? What's the difference. The meaning is exactly the same when the rights of the "people" cannot be infringed upon by the "government".

With respect to your "gun nut" slur, it just betrays your inherent hostility toward the US, our traditions, our constitutionally mandated restrictions of centralized government, and your fear of power held in the hands of the people, not the elite and the state. That's nothing new on A-D.

No, it's a time HONORED trick by the left, not the right. Activism, is by nature a "liberal" characteristic. Conservatives, conserve. They don't change just for the sake of change like liberals do.

2. Your statement that the US, as a whole, has a gun homicide rate triple the rest of the world is just not true. Since you're not here, you obviously don't know that over 70% of the murders in the US take place in less than 3.5% of the counties. I won't get into the demographics of those counties since that's another topic but anyone who's interested can check it out (hint, they aren't run by republicans). Furthermore, when you look at "violent crime rates", Canada, as one example has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than does the USA.

Link between gun ownership and gun violence? Well, then explain why the homicide rate in Switzerland is so low? They have the highest rate of gun ownership on the planet.

But, we're obviously too dangerous a place for the likes of you, Vermillion. But that's fine with me. I'm for curbing immigration and preventing Canadians who hate our country from entering it is a good place to start.

LH is right on the money here as evidenced bt the banning of handguns in the UK.

Source

Antifederalists supported the proposal to amend the Constitution with clearly-defined and enumerated rights to provide further constraints on the new government, while opponents felt that by listing only certain rights, other unlisted rights would fail to be protected. Amidst this debate, a compromise was reached and James Madison drafted what ultimately would become the United States Bill of Rights and that was proposed to the Congress on June 8, 1789.

The original text[12] of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:
“ The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. ”

It should be noted the Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8th were not numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article 1, section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against govenrment action.[13] (Additionally, these provisions can all be interpreted as limits on congressional power, a view that has been advanced by supporters of the individual rights view of the Amendment.[14])

Debate in the House on the remainder of the 8th focused again on whether or not a Bill of Rights was appropriate, and the matter was held for a later time. On July 21st, however, Madison raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[15] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. No official records were kept of the proceedings of the committee, but on July 28th the committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment.[16] On August 17th, that version was read into the Journal:[17]
“ A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. ”

The Second Amendment itself was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17th and August 20th.[18] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24th the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
“ A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. ”

The next day, August 25th, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
“ A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. ”

On September 4th, the Senate voted to change significantly the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
“ A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed ”

The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9th. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence," next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.[19] The Senate then slightly modified the language, and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
“ A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The House voted on September 21st to accept the changes made by the Senate, however the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[20] ”

This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.

Well, technically the individual who stopped his rampage was an agent of the state. He was off-duty

Anyway- when I was a kid- bullies got away with it- and no one got shot- nowadays- it is very likely that the bully will be shot at some point. Perhaps dealing with bullies in the schools a little better might make kids a bit less suicidal in the first place- don't ya think?

Actually, the reverse is true. When he is off-duty, he is most decidedly not an agent of the state. We know this because had the off-duty officer been the shooter, there would be no liability to the state.

That was hardly my point. My point was that he was a trained officer. Neither was I arguing against gun ownership. There's a common misconception among gun advocates who think that all anyone needs is a gun, failing to even remotely consider the possible increase in violent crime that would result from such action. Generally, people are willing to rely on the training of police before they go out, purchase a gun and subsequently train to adequately handle tense situations such as the one which played out in Trolley Square. In this instance, even if everyone had been carrying concealed weapons, at least two people would have been killed anyway. With more people carrying firearms, with no way to differentiate between crazed shooter and innocent defender, people will shoot at the person carrying a gun. That's the reality of the situation, not the idealistic version where everyone knows who the bad guy is.

There is more than one reason a police officer is required to wear a uniform while on duty--it generally provides the citizenry a way to identify the good from the bad. The off-duty officer may very well have been shot himself had another bystander decided to take action without realizing the cop was around.

When people advocate gun control, those who disagree will generally argue that the criminals won't adhere to the law, so it only hinders the law-abiding. This is a completely valid argument. However, what these same people won't say is why they think that more guns will somehow reduce crime. If criminals are willing to break the law, what makes anyone think more guns will stop that? Someone out to murder (especially in this situation with Trolley Square) probably won't care that others are wielding guns. It'll just give them another target.

But that's just my opinion. I could be quite wrong.

People inside the Bath and Body Works store watched helplessly as the woman was gunned down.

How about a more realistic description of this event, bringing 4 citizen gun-owners into the mix.

Bad Guy starts shooting people in the mall. Citizen A pulls his gun out and instead of running and hiding, decides to be a hero. Citizen B feels the same way, and comes barreling around the corner. He sees the Bad Guy and citizen A with guns, starts blazing away at both of them. Assailed from two sides, Citizen A fires back at citizen B and at the Bad Guy, manages to shoot citizen B in the face and also kill old Mrs. O'Malley in the Orange Julius. By this time citizens C and D are on scene with their heat. Not knowing who's who they shoot citizen A and the Bad Guy and wound several bystanders.

They don't really want the responsibility of fighting back--that's what the police are for. They have been trained to do that. Five people died, two as soon as the shooter entered the mall--how would more guns have stopped those two from being killed? This kid was willing to die from the get-go. More guns wouldn't have prevented him from committing the murders. This argument should not devolve into a pro-gun/anti-gun debate. It has no relevance to this situation.

A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right. Does the right to keep and bear arms include the right to possess weaponry for revolutionary acts against tyranny? According to the court: “The individual right to bear arms, a right recognized in both England and the colonies, was a crucial factor in the colonists' victory over the British army in the Revolutionary War. Without that individual right, the colonists never could have won the Revolutionary War. After declaring independence from England and establishing a new government through the Constitution, the American founders sought to codify the individual right to bear arms, as did their forebearers one hundred years earlier in the English Bill of Rights. A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well-justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." -- Thomas Jefferson

[A]ll power is inherent in the people ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed, -- Thomas Jefferson

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. -- Thomas Jefferson

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. –Thomas Jefferson

How about this scenario:
Bad Guy considers shooting people in the mall. Bad Guy realizes that armed citizens will kill him almost before he gets off a single shot. Bad Guy changes his mind, stays home and plays Nintendo.

How about this scenario:
Bad Guy considers shooting people in the mall. Bad Guy realizes that armed citizens will kill him almost before he gets off a single shot. Bad Guy changes his mind, stays home and plays Nintendo.

I agree one hundred percent. In fact, I lived in Florida during the years that the concealed carry option went into effect, and I watched the crime rates fall exponentially. I carried myself, and it did bring me peace of mind.

At the risk of sounding soft, I truly do find myself feeling sympathetic towards him and his family, as well as his victims. That is not excusing his actions, I would have shot him too, but....This family left a wartorn area, the boy was likely psychologically marred already, then they move to a peaceful area where he came of age likely feeling very isolated and alone, and he died at 18. This family has been through a lot. It is a tragedy all around.

How about this scenario:
Bad Guy considers shooting people in the mall. Bad Guy realizes that armed citizens will kill him almost before he gets off a single shot. Bad Guy changes his mind, stays home and plays Nintendo.

Considering how many people claim ojeof the reasons to have guns is to discourage mass shooting (though they are more frequent in the US than any first world country) or stop them (though I can find no evidence of this ever happening) how can either of these arguments be said to hold and water?

Secondly, I'd like to throw out a question to the group. Mass shootings happen with alarming frequency in the US, usually in rashes. One a month is common, two a month is not unusual, so there are LOTS of mass shootings to choose from when I ask the following question:

How many of these mass shooters were finally brought down by a trusty civilian and his concealed weapon? I did a quick search of mass shootings on the web and cannot find a SINGLE one. Now I know it MUST have happened at some point, surely, but I certainly can't find any evidence of it. If it has happened, and as I said I'm sure it must have happened at some point, it certainly is not common. presuming this has happened... why is it so incredibly rare? Why do almost every mass shooting in the US media end with the gunman killing himself, or being killed by police?

Considering how many people claim ojeof the reasons to have guns is to discourage mass shooting (though they are more frequent in the US than any first world country) or stop them (though I can find no evidence of this ever happening) how can either of these arguments be said to hold and water?