Omaha Shootings: Selfish Act of a Bastard

[J77]

The selfish bastard said he wanted to go out in style.

The best thing the media could do is not to give any details of this ****, even his name.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sadly these people will always exist. Like terrorists, you just have to hope to be lucky not to get in their way. :(

 

[hypatia]

How sad for the families, I am so very sorry for them. I agree with the OP.

 

[LURCH]

My fiance' is responsibel for security at a very large mall. Every time I hear about this kind of thing it makes me nervous.

 

[Moonbear]

The selfish bastard said he wanted to go out in style.

The best thing the media could do is not to give any details of this ****, even his name.

I agree. I think that it only further encourages those who are borderline psychotic to consider dying famous instead of just shooting themselves in the living room.

 

[momentum_waves]

Would it have helped if there had been some kind of gun control laws which prevented persons with a history of previous mental instability, to be allowed to purchase weapons, or ammunition?

 

[Moonbear]

Would it have helped if there had been some kind of gun control laws which prevented persons with a history of previous mental instability, to be allowed to purchase weapons, or ammunition?

In this case, no, I don't think so. As far as I know, he had no such history...at least not documented in a way that a law like that could access. There's another catch to such a law, which is that it would require making your medical history known beyond your doctor's office in order to have a database to report such instabilities.

 

[cristo]

Would it have helped if there had been some kind of gun control laws which prevented persons with a history of previous mental instability, to be allowed to purchase weapons, or ammunition?

What about gun laws that prevented anyone from owning a gun?

 

[Evo]

What about gun laws that prevented anyone from owning a gun?

Oh, the slogan here is "if owning a gun is criminal, then only criminals will own guns".

 

[cristo]

Oh, the slogan here is "if owning a gun is criminal, then only criminals will own guns".

That might be so, but doesn't answer my question. This guy doesn't appear to be the sort of person that's going to go and get a gun off the black market. I bet he used his dad's gun or something like that.

How many mass shootings does the US need to go through before the legal ownership of guns is banned?

 

[Evo]

That might be so, but doesn't answer my question. This guy doesn't appear to be the sort of person that's going to go and get a gun off the black market. I bet he used his dad's gun or something like that.

How many mass shootings does the US need to go through before the legal ownership of guns is banned?

I doubt you will ever see gun ownership banned in the US. We have the NRA (National Rifle Association) which is probably one of the most powerful lobby groups in the US. It would be un-Amurcan to ban guns, not to mention how many guns there are in the US and that many people would only give up their guns if they were pried out of their cold, dead hands.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What about gun laws that prevented anyone from owning a gun?

when was the last time a law prevented a crime? if someone wants a gun, they will get one, it's not hard. he had the guts to kill 8 people, you don't think he has the guts to ask a couple shady buddies for a gun?

 

[Mallignamius]

If these guys don't have their guns, they'll find, make, or use something else. Homemade pipe bombs are easy, for example. So I doubt taking guns away will make any difference at all.

 

[jim mcnamara]

cristo - beyond counting. For years, I lived VERY far from any city. Everyone in my ghost town had at least a small caliber hunting rifle. It's legal in New Mexico to walk around with a holstered pistol.

ghost town = Domingo NM. It's a ghost town on the Santo Domingo Reservation.
I do not think gun control will happen any time soon in the US. Not because it has a load of bigtime downsides or even some good aspects. It's more related to cultural mores than anything. IMO. Can you say 'John Wayne'?

moonbear - HIPAA protects everyone. So you can argue either side. Privacy of medical records vs release medical records for special cases. The 'no release' folks won the toss of the coin.

 

[cristo]

It would be un-Amurcan to ban guns,

But we're living in completely different times to when the constitution was written. Every country has to progress with the times, or be stuck back in the dark ages.

not to mention how many guns there are in the US and that many people would only give up their guns if they were pried out of their cold, dead hands.

But you can't just say that there are some people who wouldn't agree with this, so let's just go along with them. Sometimes laws have to be changed for the good of the country, and people have to make sacrifices in order to save lives.

There will be a time in the future when America bans guns; it will happen when such shootings become a weekly or daily occurance. However I agree that no one in the US government will try and ban them before such a thing happens.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There will be a time in the future when America bans guns; it will happen when such shootings become a weekly or daily occurance. However I agree that no one in the US government will try and ban them before such a thing happens.

There are daily shootings in Milwaukee where I live and we're only the 23rd most violent city in the states :)

 

[cristo]

when was the last time a law prevented a crime?

What, so we should not have any laws because they don't make any difference? Come on!

if someone wants a gun, they will get one, it's not hard. he had the guts to kill 8 people, you don't think he has the guts to ask a couple shady buddies for a gun?

I'm saying that spur of the moment things like this would not happen if every household did not own a gun.

There are daily shootings in Milwaukee where I live and we're only the 23rd most violent city in the states :)

And you're supporting the fact that americans should be allowed to own guns? Wow.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What, so we should not have any laws because they don't make any difference? Come on!

I'm saying that spur of the moment things like this would not happen if every household did not own a gun.

How do you know it was the spur of the moment. The kids was messed up for years. I'm sure he didn't wake up one day, think of it and same day start shooting. And I'm sure if there was a law it wouldn't stop him one bit. Of course this is all speculation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And you're supporting the fact that americans should be allowed to own guns? Wow.

I'm not supporting it, but I'm saying I don't think it makes much difference to the hardened criminal or a suicidal maniac.

 

[cristo]

And I'm sure if there was a law it wouldn't stop him one bit.

But if there was a law it would make it harder to obtain a weapon. If such a law stops just one person from killing innocent people then isn't it worth it? Is it not worth giving up the right to carry a lethal weapon in order to just save one life?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But if there was a law it would make it harder to obtain a weapon. If such a law stops just one person from killing innocent people then isn't it worth it? Is it not worth giving up the right to carry a lethal weapon in order to just save one life?

This is a slippery slope though. Might as well ban cars, cigs, electricity...

 

[cristo]

This is a slippery slope though. Might as well ban cars, cigs, electricity...

Well, sure it is, but it's surely necessary. There are differences between handguns and your examples: cigarettes, cars and electricity are not designed to injure or to kill other people (well, some car's aren't anyway!) whereas the primary function for a gun is to disable whatever you're shooting at. Sure, there are farmers that need rifles to ward off foxes, or whatever vermin you have over there; but do they need assault rifles, handguns, uzis, etc..?

 

[scorpa]

Sure, there are farmers that need rifles to ward off foxes, or whatever vermin you have over there; but do they need assault rifles, handguns, uzis, etc..?

Thank you for pointing that out, that seems to be a point people tend to conviently miss in these arguments, that guns are actually useful and are necessary tools for some people. And no people do not need assault rifles, handguns...ect but 99% of the people who do have them are also not criminals. I come from an area where everyone has multiple firearms and no one ever died from using them, or went off the deep end and went on a shooting rampage. Heck we had a class in grade 9 that was basically guns 101 (a hunter education class) and it was great, no school shootings resulted from it either. It is a typical case of the few ruining it for the many. Everytime a drunk driver gets into a vehicle that vehicle becomes a weapon but you don't see much action against that...hell you actually see tv commercials advertising law firms specializing in helping them avoid charges.

But I do agree with you there are some guns people do not need to have, but there are a lot of things people do not need to have and yet do. Some people just enjoy collecting firearms as a hobby.

I suppose I just feel that people can continue to ban things that might be dangerous but in the end these psychos will still find a way to do what they want to do...whether it be stabbing somone, making a bomb, running down everyone in their path in their car...ect. Getting rid of the pyschos would be a lot more effective than getting rid of the guns unfortunately that is a bit tougher to do :P

 

[cristo]

hell you actually see tv commercials advertising law firms specializing in helping them avoid charges.

You have TV adverts helping drunk drivers escape charges? Wow.

Some people just enjoy collecting firearms as a hobby.

But, like I said above, is it not worth giving up a hobby to save a life?

I suppose I just feel that people can continue to ban things that might be dangerous but in the end these psychos will still find a way to do what they want to do...whether it be stabbing somone, making a bomb, running down everyone in their path in their car...ect. Getting rid of the pyschos would be a lot more effective than getting rid of the guns unfortunately that is a bit tougher to do :P

You'll never know this until you try! Do you really suspect that everone who's caused these mass murders is intelligent enough, or patient enough, to make a homemade bomb? I don't.

 

[Cyrus]

But we're living in completely different times to when the constitution was written. Every country has to progress with the times, or be stuck back in the dark ages.

But you can't just say that there are some people who wouldn't agree with this, so let's just go along with them. Sometimes laws have to be changed for the good of the country, and people have to make sacrifices in order to save lives.

There will be a time in the future when America bans guns; it will happen when such shootings become a weekly or daily occurance. However I agree that no one in the US government will try and ban them before such a thing happens.

No offense, but let us worry about our constitution. Its not your concern.

 

[scorpa]

You have TV adverts helping drunk drivers escape charges? Wow.

Yep it is pretty disgusting in my opinion.

But, like I said above, is it not worth giving up a hobby to save a life?

If it would do any good then yes, but it isn't the gun collectors who are going out and shooting people so giving up their hobby would hardly help matters.

You'll never know this until you try! Do you really suspect that everone who's caused these mass murders is intelligent enough, or patient enough, to make a homemade bomb? I don't.

Intelligent? Who said you have to be smart to make a bomb? All they would have to do it type "how to make a bomb" into google and have at it. Cheap and easy I am sure.

 

[cristo]

No offense, but let us worry about our constitution. Its not your concern.

Hey, that's an interesting thought. Perhaps you should have mentioned that to your president when he went invading other countries and forcing American values upon them. I'm afraid that since we live in the same world, the worries of one country are the worries of every other country.

Do you have a valid point, or is it just "butt out; it's none of your business"?

 

[Office_Shredder]

But, like I said above, is it not worth giving up a hobby to save a life?

Similarly, people should stop playing sports, as it's just a hobby, and people die because of it.

What would be the economic cost of gathering up and destroying the 200 million privately owned firearms in the US? Are you willing to do it for free? Maybe the person whose life is being saved should do it. Banning guns isn't nearly as simple as just saying they're banned

 

[Cyrus]

Hey, that's an interesting thought. Perhaps you should have mentioned that to your president when he went invading other countries and forcing American values upon them. I'm afraid that since we live in the same world, the worries of one country are the worries of every other country.

Do you have a valid point, or is it just "butt out; it's none of your business"?

No, this is a domestic issue. It has nothing to do with Iraq, and you know it. So basically, if you're telling me to change my constitution and rights, then yes. Butt out.

Who trade liberty for security will lose both - Benjamin Franklin.

 

[cristo]

It has nothing to do with Iraq, and you know it.

Really? So Americans can go around the world and change whatever the hell the like about other countries and their way of living, but whenever any questions that the US constitution is somewhat outdated the shutters come down. That sounds rather hypocritical to me.

 

[Cyrus]

Its nice to be a superpower, yes?

BTW, we don't change things in the UK, do we?

 

[Evo]

Cristo, there is an independant nutjob running for president that wants to make it legal to carry assault weapons into public parks. He goes way beyond any sanity with regards to gun ownership, actually trying to repeal gun safety laws like the Brady Bill which requires gun purchasers to wait up to five days for a background check to occur before being allowed to purchase a handgun. Here is a link to his website and the text below, if this doesn't scare you, nothing will. He also wants the US to withdraw from the UN because he claims they are trying to promote gun laws in the US.

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.

H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.

H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.

H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/

 

[cristo]

Cristo, there is an independant nutjob running for president that wants to make it legal to carry assault weapons into public parks. He goes way beyond any sanity with regards to gun ownership, actually trying to repeal gun safety laws like the Brady Bill which requires gun purchasers to wait up to five days for a background check to occur before being allowed to purchase a handgun. Here is a link to his website and the text below, if this doesn't scare you, nothing will. He also wants the US to withdraw from the UN because he claims they are trying to promote gun laws in the US.

Wow! That's totally insane!

 

[turbo]

But if there was a law it would make it harder to obtain a weapon. If such a law stops just one person from killing innocent people then isn't it worth it? Is it not worth giving up the right to carry a lethal weapon in order to just save one life?

No. We get the same messages every day on different issues. US citizens of a certain age remember "55 saves lives". We could prevent countless traffic deaths every year by enforcing a universal speed limit of 25 mph. We would also cripple our economy, our systems for distributing food and medicines, and kill businesses that rely on commuters to staff them. There are risks in life. If the perpetrator had not owned a gun, he might have constructed bombs, or might have ambushed his victims with knives, which would have been a lot quieter and might have allowed him to kill more people. You cannot pre-empt the actions of psychotics by removing every method of attack.

My wife and I live way out in the country, over 20 minutes away from the nearest law-enforcement station (sheriff's department, state police barracks). If some creep tries a home invasion here, my 911 call will be to get somebody to come get the body, not to ask for protection and ride out the invasion. I have a Glock 20 (10mm auto) and I am deadly accurate with it.

 

[cristo]

BTW, we don't change things in the UK, do we?

Not yet, you don't; but that's because we had a PM that, for some strange reason, worshipped George Bush.

I'm not saying that we're going to come over and change things; I'm just giving you my opinion. I don't see why so many Americans won't even stop and think about this problem: everyone seems to immediately jump on the defensive taking the line "it's my rights." Like I said before; times change. There's a reason that criminals aren't imprisoned and tortured in the tower of london anymore, or why they aren't hanged and their heads put on posts outside the city gates.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Really? So Americans can go around the world and change whatever the hell the like about other countries and their way of living, but whenever any questions that the US constitution is somewhat outdated the shutters come down. That sounds rather hypocritical to me.

Give an example of Americans going around the world changing "whatever the hell they like about other countries and their way of living". And demonstrate how the change is arbitrary or based solely on America's whims for that country's way of living

 

[scorpa]

No. We get the same messages every day on different issues. US citizens of a certain age remember "55 saves lives". We could prevent countless traffic deaths every year by enforcing a universal speed limit of 25 mph. We would also cripple our economy, our systems for distributing food and medicines, and kill businesses that rely on commuters to staff them. There are risks in life. If the perpetrator had not owned a gun, he might have constructed bombs, or might have ambushed his victims with knives, which would have been a lot quieter and might have allowed him to kill more people. You cannot pre-empt the actions of psychotics by removing every method of attack.

My wife and I live way out in the country, over 20 minutes away from the nearest law-enforcement station (sheriff's department, state police barracks). If some creep tries a home invasion here, my 911 call will be to get somebody to come get the body, not to ask for protection and ride out the invasion. I have a Glock 20 (10mm auto) and I am deadly accurate with it.

I 100% agree. Good post turbo.

 

[Cyrus]

Not yet, you don't; but that's because we had a PM that, for some strange reason, worshipped George Bush.

I'm not saying that we're going to come over and change things; I'm just giving you my opinion. I don't see why so many Americans won't even stop and think about this problem: everyone seems to immediately jump on the defensive taking the line "it's my rights." Like I said before; times change. There's a reason that criminals aren't imprisoned and tortured in the tower of london anymore, or why they aren't hanged and their heads put on posts outside the city gates.

Protecting your rights is an invariant property of being an American. We do not trade rights for temporary comfort. If you ask us to do this you esentially are slapping what America stands for in the face. This is why we get 'defensive'. You don't give up everyones rights to save, 'just one life'. One life is NOT worth giving up our rights, in fact hundreds of thousands of americans have died over the years so this does NOT happen.

 

[cristo]

We do not trade rights for temporary comfort.

Even if that "temporary comfort" will in fact save lives?

Meh.. this is pointless. Clearly, if there are so many of you who want to own handguns/weapons and are "a deadly shot," then there's no persuading your country to see sense. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, and see how this problem escalates.

 

[Cyrus]

I thought I just said no. Liberty > Lives.

Id rather have my entire family be shot dead by a nut job than put into slave camp by a government. Now are you starting to get why we don't trade away rights?

 

[Evo]

As I stated previously, it's unlikely that we will ever see guns banned in the US. I'm not for a ban, I happen to enjoy shooting handguns. I don't own one, but my first husband got into them and took me many times to the firing range, turns out I'm an excellent shot.

What I *do* want to see is better gun laws. I don't think the mentally ill should have access to guns and I don't see any reason any citizen needs an assault weapon. I believe in common sense when it comes to guns.

I grew up in Texas where there were a LOT of pickup trucks and it was rare to see one that didn't have a shotgun prominently displayed in the rear window gun rack. At that time it was also legal to drink and drive, with your gun, of course. So, growing up around guns, one tends to understand that the ratio of guns to shooting people is very small. I can see where growing up in a country that doesn't allow them it can seem very strange that they are so widely accepted here.

 

[cristo]

Id rather have my entire family be shot dead by a nut job than put into slave camp by a government.

But noone's talking about putting you in a slave camp; the discussion is about taking away guns.

Now are you starting to get why we don't trade away rights?

Nope.. I think you just made a rather foolish analogy.

What I *do* want to see is better gun laws. I don't think the mentally ill should have access to guns and I don't see any reason any citizen needs an assault weapon. I believe in common sense when it comes to guns.

Good suggestions. If everyone thought like this, then there would be no problem!

 

[Astronuc]

As I stated previously, it's unlikely that we will ever see guns banned in the US. I'm not for a ban, I happen to enjoy shooting handguns. I don't own one, but my first husband got into them and took me many times to the firing range, turns out I'm an excellent shot.

What I *do* want to see is better gun laws. I don't think the mentally ill should have access to guns and I don't see any reason any citizen needs an assault weapon. I believe in common sense when it comes to guns.

Hmmm. Sounds very presidential to me.

 

[Cyrus]

But noone's talking about putting you in a slave camp; the discussion is about taking away guns.

Nope.. I think you just made a rather foolish analogy.


Good suggestions. If everyone thought like this, then there would be no problem!

This tells me you have no clue as to why our constituiton gives us guns. The analogy is spot on.

 

[turbo]

I have heard three different news reports on the Omaha killings and every single one of them stated that the killer used an AK-47. That is a flat-out lie that deserves to be retracted (and never will be). The killer used a cheap Chinese semi-automatic rifle (SKS) that cosmetically resembles an AK-47. AK-47s are fully-automatic machine guns. The SKS is actually a lot less lethal than many common semi-automatic hunting rifles. If some guy is coming after me with an SKS, I'd have him way over-gunned if I had a 45-year-old Remington Model 742 chambered for .30-06 to use in my defense. With my deadly accurate old Winchester lever-action carbines, I'd have the upper hand, too.

As for women and handguns, women are better instinctive shooters than men, in my experience, and that is critical to handgun accuracy. My wife is a natural, and although my Glock Model 20 is too much of a handful for her (the reason that it was not universally adopted by police departments in favor of the powerful 10mm auto chambering), she has no problem handling .38s, 9mm, etc. She really enjoys pistol shooting, and when my old friend and his wife took a break for a few days from their import jewelry business, we set aside a whole afternoon to spend shooting pistols at an informal range (sand pit) near here. His wife had never shot pistols before (city girl from Chicago) and it turns out that she's pretty darned good at it and had a blast. To save money, we shot quite a few boxes of .22 and .22 magnums, but we went through a few boxes of 9mm and 10mm autos, too.

 

[cristo]

This tells me you have no clue as to why our constituiton gives us guns. The analogy is spot on.

Of course I know why your constitution gave you guns. I doubt you'd really be able to overthrow a government with "people power" in this day and age, though!

Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. You've got your opinions, I've got mine, and they're never going to coincide.

 

[Evo]

I think perhaps the fact that guns were almost a necessity in the US 200 years ago when the constitution was written might have a "little" bit to do with the right to bear arms being important then. Had the constitution been written before firearms were invented would we have the right to bear bows and arrows?

I've always wondered if the term "bear arms" specifically means fire arms, or is it just assumed?

 

[turbo]

I 100% agree. Good post turbo.

Thanks, Scorpa. In this day of instant news coverage, we hear of all the sensational developments, and the networks looking for ratings play it up to the hilt. Every one of the reports I watched tonight said that "the gunman used an AK-47" which is a load of crap. He had a cheap Chinese SKS semi-automatic rifle, not a machine gun. Still, in the minds of every cow-brained idiot in the US, there will linger the "truth" that the kid had a machine gun. That's pretty stupid. Remington, Browning, and many other manufactures produce semi-automatic hunting rifles that are far more powerful, accurate and reliable than that piece of junk. Apart from clip capacity, the average deer/elk hunter has far more effective firepower every time they go into the field to hunt.

 

[cristo]

I think perhaps the fact that guns were almost a necessity in the US 200 years ago when the constitution was written might have a "little" bit to do with the right to bear arms being important then. Had the constitution been written before firearms were invented would we have the right to bear bows and arrows?

I've always wondered if the term "bear arms" specifically means fire arms, or is it just assumed?

It probably does mean any kind of arms, but in this day and age firearms is just assumed.

I read on the bbc news website a while ago that, whilst police in england were worried about illegal possession of firearms, and were cracking down on it, the police force in scotland were equally worried about the illegal possession of crossbows! I can't find the reference anymore, though.

 

[Evo]

It probably does mean any kind of arms, but in this day and age firearms is just assumed.

I've always wondered if having a fully armed siege engine aimed at my psycho neighbor's house is allowable under my right to bear arms? If not, can I carry around a bomb if that's my choice of arms?

I read on the bbc news website a while ago that, whilst police in england were worried about illegal possession of firearms, and were cracking down on it, the police force in scotland were equally worried about the illegal possession of crossbows! I can't find the reference anymore, though.

I remember reading about that too.