Blue Byline

A cop's perspective of the news and South Sound matters

Are we merely sheep for a mass shooter’s slaughter?

Post by Brian O'Neill on Dec. 12, 2012 at 11:07 am with 35 Comments »
December 14, 2012 5:40 pm

NOTE: The following column was written and titled two days prior to the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. While I believe the content is that much more relevant, the events in Newtown are so horrific that I apologize if the following piece appears blithe by comparison.

Quick question- is the following a news headline or a statement so ubiquitous it might well be classified as cliche?

“Masked gunman opens fire in crowded public place, killing several before taking his own life”

The answer, of course, is that this line not only describes the latest mass shooting event – this one in a Portland mall packed with Christmas shoppers (Trib 12/12) – but it also parallels the description of  numerous other incidents since the Columbine shooting in 1999.

Site of Portland shooting/ AP Photo

Mass shooting events have exploded in number since that fateful event, and to that list we can add disparate locales such as Fort Worth, Washington D.C., Chicago, Birchwood and Brookfield, Nickel Mines, Blacksburg, Omaha, Dekalb and Covina. In our own state, we can add Carnation and Alder, even Tacoma, to the list. And on it goes.

In fact, it would take little alteration to the above statement for it to encompass the parameters of virtually all of these events. For example, we could substitute a school, movie theater or apartment complex for “crowded public place”; we could specify a number in lieu of “several”; and we could alter the fate of the shooter from “taking his own life” to “before surrendering to police” or being shot by police.”

The fact that such subtle changes can cover the spread on what has become an increasingly deadly and growing form of domestic terrorism should get everyone’s attention. Mass shootings may not represent a high percentage of our nation’s annual homicides, but the psychological effects are disproportionately great. One simply can’t ignore the seemingly endless accounts of disaffected loners or deranged individuals who somehow access high-powered weapons with the intent of- what? Is blood the only ink our national conscience is capable of reading anymore?

Enough rhetorical questions. What we need are a few reasonable solutions.

The law enforcement community has embraced “Active Shooter,” a scenario-based training model that blends ideology and tactics for first responders with community outreach to potential target locations, such as shopping malls and schools.

The model could be extended even further. As a public safety education, the customers, students and passersby caught up in a sudden panic should at least have some clue. Like airline safety briefings, being aware of the best escape routes and what to do in the first moments of a potential shooting incident may not contain the problem, but it may slow the spiral into utter chaos. It would mean acknowledging that we have become dangerously apathetic to a growing threat.

The problem with these solutions is that they treat the symptom rather than the disease. Somehow, we must find a way to intervene before a antisocial individual morphs into an unstable and well-armed gunman bent on becoming the next pseudo-celebrity killer.

Since one-issue voters and gun rights advocates have put the firearms issue off the table, I see only one solution. We must deny future gunmen the one thing that their ruined and estranged lives failed to provide. The spotlight.

Even disaffected, violent loners watch the news, read the paper and keep abreast of the Twitterverse. When the media saturates the connected world with glory shots (photos of a black-clad, gun-toting photo (taken by the gunman himself before the shooting), it is all but an invitation for the next loser, hungry for similar fame, to arm himself and find a suitable killing ground.

When we take into account the grisly chronology of mass shootings, it’s hard to escape the fact that, in the eyes of these killers, we are merely sheep for the slaughter. The question is, should we sharpen their knives as well?

Leave a comment Comments → 35
  1. And yet, all these mass shootings happen in “no gun zones”. Perhaps something should be done about that instead. I haven’t seen too many mass shootings in a gun store, for example.

  2. donfosters says:

    We should be sharpening OUR own knives and cleaning our guns.

  3. tomwa007 says:

    Just “Say No”.

    That always works!

  4. Don’t glorify guns, shoot ‘em up movies and blacken the reputation
    of producers and directors who simplify life into it’s end. It’s
    just like not glorifying nuclear weapons.

  5. wyecoyote says:

    One simply can’t ignore the seemingly endless accounts of disaffected loners or deranged individuals who somehow access high-powered weapons with the intent of- what? Is blood the only ink our national conscience is capable of reading anymore?

    Read more here: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2012/12/12/are-we-sheep-for-a-mass-shooters-slaughter/#storylink=cpy

    Calling the 5.56/.223 cartridge a high power. Really little to much coolaid on that one. That is like calling the .25 acp round a high powered pistol cartridge. LEO’s must quake in fear if they see someone with a 30-06 rifle or terrified of the .300 win mag cartridge? The 12 gauge must stop them in their tracks. Ok I guess enough sarcasam. Some of the rounds I listed will defeat level 3 body armor where the 5.56/.223 won’t. So why belive the hype especially a police officer that should have some familiarty with different cartridges. And if you come back and say because it is in the AR15 platform then you really have fallen for the Brady Bunch information.

    As Gandalf stated most of these mass shootings happen in so called “gun free” zones. How is that working out for us. Reminds me of the youtube clip “gun free” zones. Those bent on killing others rarely worry about the law.

    I would state that the media needs to quit putting out the name of the shooter and a picture. Don’t give them the time of day.

  6. Brian O'Neill says:

    A discussion on what constitutes a high-powered round is a highly arrogant tangent, given the recent loss of life. Whether one dies from a .22 round to the head (the most common round in fatal shootings) or a .50 cal really doesn’t matter, does it?

    People who cherish their guns above the lives of others can’t seem to move beyond the word “firearm” when they see it in print. This is why I set the gun issue aside in the column.

    And since you brought it up, with 310 million firearms in this country, and the average cost of a used handgun coming in at $75, the practical reality of a “gun free zone” is pure fantasy.

  7. sandblower says:

    Every country with a society that qualifies as civilized, that has strict gun ownership laws, has a far lower rate and number of gun deaths than we do. The conclusion is easy……..except for those worrying about a boogeyman behind every door.
    Support the Brady organization and the Mayors for reasonable gun laws. We can make slow progress just as we did for gay rights, desegregated schools and the AIDs battle for example. Gun violence is a national health issue after all.
    Wingnuts are not invincible.

  8. moms4marijuana says:

    One girl tweeted “I was in my first mall shooting today.” She apparently thinks she will be possible be in a second or third.

    It’s a sad commentary.

  9. wyecoyote says:

    Brian, Actually it is not an arogant tangent. You stated that the 5.56/.223 round from the ar-15 is a high powered round when in fact it is not. To me this means one of two things. A) the person telling this has little to no familiarty with firearms and only has heard this on the news and gone forward thinking this to be the truth. or B) the individual knows better and states this for dramatic affect or to continue to perpetuate a myth. This is my direct reasoning for a high amount of sarcasam. This to me is similar to watching coverage last night and the news finding one picture of someone on his facebook page shooting targets with a pistol and stating the shooter had a “gun fetish”. I would assume that as an officer you have some familiarty with firearms though from my experince with those of my own family that are officers not all know beyond what they are told at the acadamey.

    As to the .22 caliber are you including those that commit suicide in those numbers. From what I have read from the DOJ studies is that the .380 and .32 ACP round are the most commonly used in homicides.

    Where are you getting your figures for $75 handguns? Is that at the street level? I have never seen either on the web or in the shops a $75 handgun, rifle or shotgun. Heck even hipoints as cheap as they are I have never seen a used one for $75. I picked up a used .410 the other day single barrel for my daughter cost me $95. So where exactly are these $75 guns? Also does that mean we can get rid of the “gun free” zones?

    Sandblower, typical statement. You have to add enough qualifiers to your first statement. So what constituets a “civilized” society. Can we count countries in Africa, Asia or South America? Or is it just western european countries counts as “civilized” to you. Personally I like Africa Rawanda was great before the current troubles haven’t been back in years. Brazil was alot of fun. To bad they aren’t “civilized to you. I also notice you don’t want to count violent crime rate or homicide rate. The boogeyman behind everydoor. You use fear to drive your argument but project their being afgraid on those you disagree with.

    Yes support organizations such as the Brady and Mayors groups that can’t use actual data or have to lie about it. Hm, let me guess your going to try bringing up the 30,000 a year argument. Funny that you have to include the 16,500 that comit suicide. With less than 30% actually having come from homicide. Yet you don’t want to compare homicide rates and violent crime rates do you. Facts aren’t in your favor. Nor do you want to consider suicide rates. Your arguments rely only on fear and are not fact based.

  10. sandblower says:

    wyecoyote is the posterchild of the gun nut society according to his most recent post.
    Try England or Japan and manipulate the numbers any way you wish. The fact remains that GUN DEATHS for whatever reason do not even come close to what happens here. An now we have 18 kids murdered in Connecticut because people like wyecoyote cannot come to grips with reality. I’d say that is where real mental illness lies.

  11. BlaineCGarver says:

    You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, so forget about a gun turn-in when the bad guys will have no intention of doing so. Pull your head out, and blame the murder, not to tool.

  12. wyecoyote says:

    Sandblower,
    Thanks for showing that you don’t have an argument. You can not argue facts and figures so you cede that portion of the argument and use emotion (fear mostly) and name calling. Congratulations for recognizing that your argument is weak and can not stand on its own merits.
    So you mention Japan and England as two. United States Homicide rate 4.2, England Homicide rate 1.2 and Japan’s homicide rate 0.3. Yes they have lower rates of Homicide oh and just to throw another out there Russia 10.2 and Greenland with 19.2. Though Greenland has a very low population less than many cities its rate can be high. Great now violent crime rate US 403, UK 2,034 Japan 87. These rates are per 100,000. So UK which has very strict firearms laws more crime. Japan strict less crime. Not exactly a causality of firearms control for violent crime rate. Now Suicide rates US 12, UK 6.9 and Japan 33.5. Yet how can this be less access to firearms and Japan has a higher rate where UK has a lower but more violent crime. Again one can not draw a conclusion from firearm ownership to crime rate or suicide rate.
    Just for the record the violent crime rate has been going down and the homicide rate by firearms is down as well.
    Mexico has stricter firearms laws yet higher murder rate so does South Africa. Yet I guess you don’t consider those countries as “civilized”.

  13. nwcolorist2 says:

    There’s one tool for reducing tragedies like this that has been consistently ignored is a serious, nationwide, government sponsored education program on the proper care and use of guns.

    Remember the focus on auto safety in the 60′s and 70′s? And the steady reduction of auto related deaths that followed over the years. If half the money put into the decades-old effort to ban firearms were applied to a safety program, what might we accomplish?

  14. smokey984 says:

    The tragic mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut underscores that fact that in 1996 our own congress turned public schools into gun free zones, making them ideal killing grounds for lunatics. (Where they will only find unarmed victims.) Please contact your legislators and encourage them to rescind the Gun Free School Zones Act (reenacted by Congress, Sep. 30, 1996 –P.L. 104-208.) If even a minority of school teachers were armed (as they are in Israel and South Africa) then slaughters like this could be prevented, or at least minimized.

  15. Brian O'Neill says:

    Unbelievable. The entire column, about a serious tragedy, and almost every comment is about protecting gun rights. What passes for shame in your realities? If anyone thinks more guns, more freedoms would have stopped this from happening, then you are so delusionall that, truly, no tragedy could possibly change your narrow view.

    For or against guns, for God’s sake stop beating that drum. At least until families can bury their dead.

  16. cclngthr says:

    Brian,

    What you propose is requiring every citizen to be totally DEPENDENT upon the government for protection. What this will do is increase the chances of criminals (whoever they are) to use their guns on innocent, and law abiding citizens. This makes the criminal stronger than the victim.

    When citizens are able to get the upper hand, it instills FEAR in the criminal, therefore the chances of being a crime victim is much lower when law abiding citizens are able to use their firearm legally.

    What your ideals also require is a disregard to Stand Your Ground statutes. A person does NOT have to retreat in a place they have the right to be in. They can get the upper hand and drop the criminal in his tracks very quickly when the stand your ground statutes (which also applies to schools) are applied.

    I was at Foss High School when Douglas shot and killed Sam Kok. Both kids were students I have taught. I was about 50-75 feet from the shooting, and if I were allowed to carry my weapon on campus, Doug would not have had the opportunity to kill Sam.

    Look at statistics on how many people are killed in gun free zones and compare that number to killings in zones where guns can be carried. How many shootings happen where multiple people are shot and killed in gun free zones and how many people are shot anf killed in gun zones.

  17. simonsjs says:

    Brian your media blackout idea is something to think about. Here’s one I haven’t seen yet. A lot of these shootings have one thing in common. THESE SHOOTERS ARE ON GOVERNMENT APPROVED DRUGS! Not even a mention of it. Not surprised either. Most believe whatever government approves is ok.

  18. smokey984 says:

    Simonsjs thanks for bring up the drugs, its always a factor.

    Prozac and its family of psychotropic drugs are at the heart of 99% off mass murder shootings. The media also hypes victim disarmament zones like public brainwashing centers as a great place for Prozac and Zoloft heads to kill. They always go to the place with no guns so they can take there time. Guns don’t kill people kook psychologist pushing SSRI do.

  19. smokey984 says:

    And in fact this issue is about gun rights, this is why:

    This shooting is yet another tragic example of the failed, grotesque insistence on helpless victim zones where any crazed gunman can be assured of a large number of disarmed, undefended, helpless victims, all crammed into one place, where he can kill many children before an armed defender arrives from elsewhere. It is disturbing and sick that Politicians so hate the right of the American people to bear arms, and so hates their natural right to self defense, that they insist on making them helpless, disarmed victims for anyone who cares to kill them. And in this case, all of the teachers and staff were willfully disarmed by cowardly politicians, by force of law and threat of prison, to ensure that they would be disarmed and incapable of saving the lives of the children entrusted to their care.

    That makes the Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarming (with the very real threat of prison) all the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. That stupid law guaranteed the shooters would meet no immediate armed resistance, which is exactly what is needed to stop such an attack.

    In such a shooting (as in every criminal attack), seconds count, and the people best positioned to stop the attack are the people on the scene – the intended victims and/or their care-takers. In this case, that would mean the teachers and staff of the school who were responsible for the well-being of those children, and also the parents, who should have the ability to save the lives of their own children as they take them to and from school.

    The police cannot, and do not arrive in time to stop such shooters from killing large numbers of people. They are a slow reactive force compared to an armed citizen on the scene. This should be common sense, as it is obvious that in the immediacy of a criminal attack, it is the intended victims (or their immediate care-takers) who are there, in position to put a stop to the attack, if they are capable. And being capable means being armed, trained, willing, and able to use deadly force, right then, right there. Anything less leads to what we saw here.

  20. Brian O'Neill says:

    Thanks for all of the eloquent commentary, though I don’t think there is a shred of anything new or enlightening. As for gun-free zones, chew on this. I once chased a gang banger from a crime scene and onto a school playground. He tossed a gun into some bushes as he went by, and when I caught him I also went back and found the gun. He did hard time for that, only because of the gun-free zone violation.

    And as for government drugs, your argument only underscores the problem. Someone taking drugs for a psychosis really shouldn’t be out playing around with guns, and that is where this gun rights rhetoric falls flat with most Americans.

  21. cclngthr says:

    Brian,

    Look at the amount of killings in gun free zones and compare those killings to those in zones which allow guns. Which is lower? gun zones or gun free zones? The information I have shows that gun free zones have a higher incidence of crime involving multiple killings. Those places that have multiple killings such as in Oregon and Conn. are gun free zones.

    Would a criminal (or other person) take a risk and start shooting people at random in a place where guns are allowed? I seriously doubt it.

  22. Brian O'Neill says:

    You miss the point. Those locations are deemed gun-free zones because of the propensity for that level of violence in those types of places. We are vulnerable in locations like schools, and that is why carrying a weapon into those areas carries a higher penalty.

    Of course, there is nothing to prevent a lunatic from bringing a gun almost anywhere (unless he can’t get his hands on one).

  23. smokey984 says:

    Apparently i missed your point as well..

    Its great the gunfree zone put someone behind bars with hardtime..

    However the gunfree zone has not stopped several mass shooting since 1996, and as a result of this gunfree zone 27 human beings are DEAD this time, Virginia Tech? gunfree zone? how many others do i have to use as an example…

    So i would say your argument underscores the problem concerning a lack of common sense/logic when trying to solve a problem.

    As per my reference to drugs for mental disorders i will expand..

    The industry of modern psychiatry has officially gone insane. Virtually every emotion experienced by a human being — sadness, grief, anxiety, frustration, impatience, excitement — is now being classified as a “mental disorder” demanding chemical treatment (with prescription medications, of course).

    The new, upcoming DSM-5 “psychiatry bible,” expected to be released in a few months, has transformed itself from a medical reference manual to a testament to the insanity of the industry itself.

    “Mental disorders” named in the DSM-5 include “General Anxiety Disorder” or GAD for short. GAD can be diagnosed in a person who feels a little anxious doing something like, say, talking to a psychiatrist. Thus, the mere act of a psychiatrist engaging in the possibility of making a diagnoses causes the “symptoms” of that diagnoses to magically appear.

    This is called quack science and circular reasoning, yet it’s indicative of the entire industry of psychiatry which has become such a laughing stock among scientific circles that even the science skeptics are starting to turn their backs in disgust. Psychiatry is no more “scientific” than astrology or palm reading, yet its practitioners call themselves “doctors” of psychiatry in order to try to make quackery sound credible.

    Anyway, as a example, view the rest of the article here:
    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1211-pshychiatry-goes-insane-every-human-emotion-now-classified-as-a-mental-disorder

    My wife, a psychologist, has recently voiced her concern regarding psychiatrist’s over prescription of Pharmaceutical medications, when in fact mental conditions are most ofter a nutritional deficiency.

    Anyway my lack of knowledge on the subject may be off, however my Wife’s isn’t.

  24. leehallfae says:

    Gavin De Becker, as usual, said it best in his book: Fear Less, Real Truth About Risk, Safety, and Security in a Time of Terrorism, referencing the events of 11 September 2001. Copyright 2002.

    The reality is that most schools are safe. Violence is decreasing.

    What Is NOT decreasing are the number of Blood Hungry Vultures who rush to the crime scene, to get the better images of the bodies. This needs to end.

    To quote the talented and honorable Mr. De Becker, “Americans are, after all, experts at denial, a choir whose song could be titled “Things Like That Don’t Happen in This Neighborhood.” page 26

  25. leehallfae says:

    smokey984:

    So totally agree with what you have posted.

  26. Brian,
    I agree with your deep concern. Perhaps our society has reached a point that we are more concerned with being amused than recognizing that many have serious mental health issues. Regardless of the weapon, or calibur, it is the terrorism of these events that should haunt all of us. We’ve quite comfortably brushed of 9/11 as well without really questioning “why” did this happen?
    I used to teach crisis intervention, and when I was in the program to become an instructor we learned that most of the time you can see events like these coming. However, we tend to shy away from mentally deragned people, as very few have the courage to intervene before it is too late, including the parents of these young men.
    Some would argue “oh you can’t blame the parents”, perhaps true in some cases, but we can blame our laconic response from mental health experts.

    The gun argument will prevail, but in reality everyone that carries/owns a gun is not a mass murderer. However, we really do have a lot of mentally unstable individuals, with no way of getting them access to treatment, not enough facilities to treat them in, and not enough paid providers of mental health services even if we had access and facilities. We don’t value mental health treatment as much as we value plastic surgery.

    Could we ask, “what could we as a society have done differently to prevent these mass killings by these men?”
    No one needs an automatic weapon.
    Parents need to take responsibility for the children they are breeding into society and actually parent. Put down the TV remote, the beer, the joint, and know what your child is doing.
    When parents recognize that their son is mentally ill, they need to take action.
    Access to mental health should be fluid.
    Mental health professionals should have the right to detain and treat individulas that they deem a danger to others. (they have this right but under restrictions and very short term legal permission).
    Pray for your comfort in whatever your belief system, but understand it is up to us on this planet now, to deal with the real situation that is haunting all of us. I’ve yet to see any divine intervention guide or help us through these crisis.
    Continue to question why these events are occurring and within your community find out what mental health options are available if you have a son exhibiting the same personality or behavioral issues that most of these young men did.
    If you have poor mental health services in your community, then lobby for better. Why would you accept such mediocrity from health care when you wouldn’t if your flat screen TV wasn’t functioning well.
    Take responsibility for yourself, your family, and your community.

  27. BlaineCGarver says:

    I get it…..The author can spout his anti-gun drivel, but, pro-constitutional folks are “disrespecting” the dead…..Got it…..Be ashamed, Brian, very ashamed.

  28. musingintacoma says:

    Brian, another good point raised. For all the 2nd Amendment die-hards (pun intended) out there who think that an armed citizenry is the solution to these ills, please consider the following:

    The Oregon mall shooting and the Newtown CT shooting were highly charged incidents. If you could have bottled all the adrenaline produced by those present and if it sold for $100 a gallon, you could have retired very wealthy. Sarcasm aside, the point I wish to make is simply this:

    How many people out there with concealed carry permits have extensive training in terror situations and close quarters battle techniques? Not many, I imagine. Let’s dial it back a little; how many have training in dealing with situations that involve risk of life and the need to make split second decisions while keeping a level head? Maybe a few more. Let’s dial it back even more; How many stay current in their proficiency with their firearm of choice and are able marksmen? Maybe a few more. Lastly, how many with CCPs actually carry all the time when they are out and about, including a means to secure their weapon if they are going to a place where weapons are prohibited by law?

    The point is that in my opinion, unless a person is willing to take training to be proficient with a firearm, including training to deal with situations like the shootings I mentioned above and continue to take recurring training to keep that proficiency, they are likely to a) end up useless in such a situation for lack of ability to act appropriately and in time; b) become a victim of the shooter themselves or c) end up unintentionally taking the life of one or more innocent bystanders and may also end up like outcome (b).

    For those of you who will be quick to retort, just remember that until you’ve been there, you cannot say for certain how you will react. I never have been nor will I ever be as I do not own firearms. I can only hope that if I am unfortunate enough find myself in mass shooting situation that the shooter will be the only person I will have to concern myself about and not some hero wannabe who only makes it worse.

  29. sandblower says:

    Mr. Lanza was not a criminal as far as we know until he violently violated school property. Whether he had legal possession of the guns he had we will never know because we do not know what agreement there may have been between him and his mother. The conclusion then is that he had his guns BEFORE he was a criminal and that he subsequently became a criminal as a result of having those guns. It is the access to guns factor that creates the opportunity to become a criminal. With no guns, he was mostly impotent and the crime he committed would not have happened. And conscious or even unconscious impotence is the driving factor in marginally adapted individuals for their love of guns.

  30. wyecoyote says:

    Musingintacoma,

    You know that the Clackamas Town Center shooter stoped when confronted by a CCW holder he ran away. The CCW holder also didn’t pull the trigger because he saw people behind the shooter. Additionaly the tacoma Mall shooter ran away when confronted by two people with pistols. So your asumption about people not being able to handle the stress is unfounded.

    If you are also placing high regards on police officers for their supposed training think again. I have several family members that are LEO’s from small town to WSP. Some get out to the range only when required for qualification others get out offten. All depends on the indivdual. I agree that anyone choosing to carry should train. Be it taking classes or thrown together training. Both work and can work well. Some of the best training I have had was just tossed together. Some of the worst was formal classes by a former LEO. Just cause one pays for it does not make it a good training.

  31. NotPoliticallyCorrect says:

    sandblower,

    How about Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, James Elledge, Gary G. Grant,
    Warren Forrest, James Dwight Canady, Harvy L. Carignan, John R. Gasser? How many of them used guns in their killings? Or even Timothy McVeigh? Just to name a few.
    Maybe we should do away with kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats etc.. Would you be willing to go out and enforce gun control? Or would you rather try and go after the few individuals who actually pose a threat to society.

  32. Brian O'Neill says:

    NPC- Taking out one victim at a time, as most of your serial killers did, is a different matter than one incident in which 26 people are killed in minutes. Do you really need that pointed out?

    You also mentioned the bomber, Timothy McVeigh, who used ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) to kill his victims. Possession of ANFO is already a felony crime. If you’re wondering where law enforcement stands on this issue, consider that a major lobby for police chiefs came out in favor of a ban on assault weapons.

    Your arguments are nothing more than the tired rhetoric, much like “guns don’t kill people- people kill people,” a line which you will never hear uttered by the loved one of someone killed by a mass shooter. However, if you are prepared to tell the parents of the children in Newtown that, since Ted Bundy killed women without an assault rifle, we don’t need to ban them, then go right ahead.

  33. simonsjs says:

    Brian are you being paid to be anti gun?

  34. leehallfae says:

    Amazing, just amazing.

    100,000 are killed each year by physicians, and no one weeps for them.

    My view is that Adam Lanza was damaged goods,and by the time, his wacko mother, Nancy Lanza noticed, AFTER she bought the guns, it was Too Little, Too Late.

    Kip Kinkel – shot his parents, AFTER they stopped his drug, Prozac, and he shot 27 at hos school. He is and was mentally ill.

    There are others, some mentally ill, some not, but the one thing that you/we are so good at is Denial. Someone saw this coming a long time ago and chose to ignore the signs.

  35. simonsjs says:

    I see some comments have been removed? I see one of Brian’s posts has also been removed.
    There is only one reason for the 2nd Amendment. To keep the government thugs from taking everything the people have and enslaving them. It was NEVER about hunting animals. It’s for hunting for the g thugs that want to steal your god given freedoms.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0