Cenk is a douche desperate to have any form of relevance.

whitey wrote:Cenk is a douche desperate to have any form of relevance.

Cenk is on Current, he's desperate for an audience beyond the two on set with him and the 5 in the control room.

Although I lay most of these at the feet of legislators & an electorate that won't adequately fund mental healthcare systems, I have to admit it may not have made much difference in the case of Jacob Tyler Roberts.

He's atypical. Most shooters are socially isolated, but this guy apparently had plenty of well-functioning relationships and a history of responsibility. This is pure layman's speculation, but the sudden onset of out-of-character and even bizarre behavior makes me wonder if there was an organic problem. Brain tumor? Schizophrenia? (He was in the right age range.) What ever it was, it appears to have come on rapidly.

Crazy guy steals a gun and kills.

To me, that's the strongest support for more people carrying guns. There is no law that can protect anyone against a crazy guy with a gun.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:Crazy guy steals a gun and kills.

To me, that's the strongest support for more people carrying guns. There is no law that can protect anyone against a crazy guy with a gun.

CDFingers

Agreed but try selling that to someone who is die hard ant-gun

The bad guys don't show up at these episodes with single shot Ruger No.1 or muzzle loader,do they??

FloridaOutdoors wrote:The bad guys don't show up at these episodes with single shot Ruger No.1 or muzzle loader,do they??

If that's what they had, they'd spread it out and take pot-shots at cars on freeways. Or build propane bombs.

Focusing on the tools used by criminals is shortsighted and an easy cop out for addressing real societial issues. Imagine a Southerner in the 1950s proposing to ban rope to stop lynchings...

CDFingers wrote:Crazy guy steals a gun and kills.

To me, that's the strongest support for more people carrying guns. There is no law that can protect anyone against a crazy guy with a gun.

CDFingers

there were an estimated 10,000 people in that mall at the time this happened. Approximately 3.9% of Oregon's population are licensed to carry a concealed weapon (Eugene Register Guard: 152,096 CHL's over a population of 3,871,859)...statistically that works out to about 2500 concealed weapons in that mall at that time. Of course that's just straight statistics, we will never really know for certain.

The true wonder of it all is that absolutely none of them opened up on anything or anyone. Imagine the carnage if they had.

correction...i added a zero...my bad...make that 250...

rolandson wrote: The true wonder of it all is that absolutely none of them opened up on anything or anyone. Imagine the carnage if they had.

I'm pretty sure the average guy who is licensed to carry is much more likely to consider the situation in a sober manner, than in the "My chance to be the big hero!" manner often seen from Internet commandos.

In another forum, someone said he knew someone who was carrying concealed at the time, in the mall. That person did what he was supposed to do - what he was trained to do. Run, hide. (He apparently wasn't near the food court where the shooting was.)

Indeed, one would have to be a complete moron or a menace to the public to run toward the sound of gunfire if they weren't LEO. Stay calm and look around to help those in need... that would be the extent of true heroism in my book.

During the Gifford's shooting in Tucson, several people who were packing legally and did show up after the folks in the immediate vicinity of the shooter already managed to wrestle the shooter to the ground. The concealed carry folks who ran toward the gunfire actually risked shooting each other because of the chaos of the scene with several people pointing guns at other people on the ground. The concern was real enough that one level headed among them convinced everyone else to holster their pistols since the shooter was already disarmed and being held on the ground by several people. The case of a mistaken ID shooting is too great in a stressful situation like that.

Unless you are paid and trained to put your body in the line of fire, GTFO of there and to safety! No 2 ways about it.

That kid who stole the AR and started shooting everyone in sight was only 22 years old. He probably was unemployed and despondent about the direction of his life. Doesn't sound like any motivation beyond a general anger at "society" and a low self-esteem need to "go out with a bang." Maybe he was also high, though had it together enough to clear a jammed round in the rifle.

That he shot himself when the cops showed up is a sure sign of cowardice. But he was just a kid after all. Very sad but I have to say, this kind of misdirected anger is indeed growing in our society.

woahh what asad story

Evidently he was employed but quit his job at a deli and told everyone he was moving to Hawaii. His face book page had a posting "Follow your dreams"" and he had plastered "cancelled" over it. You don't need to be unemployed to be despondent just stuck in a dead end job with low pay and no future. How many in that situation will be pushed over the line. The media paints an affluent society and they wake up in a world closer to Dickens and they aren't the ones riding in carriages.
This is not an excuse for what he did but it could be a factor and a factor for others in the future

Yeah, but apparently he was so screwed up that his mother was posting on her MySpace page that she despaired of his drug problems and worried that he would "never grow into a man". It's a bit more nuanced than "dead end job".


Yes, dead end job. But you know what? Lots of people have dead end/low-paying jobs, and don't decide to "go out with a bang".

During the Gifford's shooting in Tucson, several people who were packing legally and did show up after the folks in the immediate vicinity of the shooter already managed to wrestle the shooter to the ground. The concealed carry folks who ran toward the gunfire actually risked shooting each other because of the chaos of the scene with several people pointing guns at other people on the ground. The concern was real enough that one level headed among them convinced everyone else to holster their pistols since the shooter was already disarmed and being held on the ground by several people. The case of a mistaken ID shooting is too great in a stressful situation like that.

Can you cite a source for this statement please? My memory is not what it used to be but I don't remember several concealed carry people pointing guns at other people on the ground. I'm aware of Joe Zamudio who arrived on the scene but made a decision not to draw his weapon.

I mostly agree with the flee and get help advice, but there is a practical and a moral judgement call there. If there's an identified active shooter at a relatively close range that is picking off people trapped in an enclosed space and no resistance is in sight, I would engage.

I was 22 once, with a broken home, menial job, and laundry list of serious problems. So have millions of people before and after me. Big fucking deal. Most make it without going on a shooting spree.

It's hard to get into the head of a 22 year old wishing to go out with a bang.... Jared Loughner was also the same age and completely insane.

Here is one article I remember about Zamoudio's statement that made an impression on me:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns ... Ms7WeQ0WSo

You are right, Begemot, the only other guy holding a gun in the Tucson shooting was not a CCL holder and had wrestled the empty Glock away from Jared Loughner. Joe Zamoudio was the first gun owner to show up that had a CCL. Thank goodness that he, with formal gun training, had enough head about him not to draw his firearm upon seeing a man with the gun and multiple people bloodied and laying on the ground.

Here is another article where Zamudio is quoted as saying, "I could have very easily done the wrong thing and hurt a lot more people.":
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/14 ... g-20110115

Our fair state of AZ doesn't legally require ANY training or license to conceal carry now. My point was that as the first article stated, soldiers with lots of formal training often still make "friendly fire" shootings in high stress situations. How more likely that a Wild West attitude where a bunch of untrained folks walking toward a shooting with good intentions and guns drawn would end up causing tragedy than bring peace in such a situation?

I do not believe that everyone carrying guns in public makes for a safer society. To me guns are a tool for hunting and sport for sharpening one's skill, only a weapon of self defense when all else fails and should never be seen as the proper solution for keeping peace in society.

Bisbee wrote:It's hard to get into the head of a 22 year old wishing to go out with a bang.... Jared Loughner was also the same age and completely insane.

Here is one article I remember about Zamoudio's statement that made an impression on me:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns ... Ms7WeQ0WSo

The other guy holding a gun was not a CCL holder and merely wrestled it away from Jared Loughner. Joe Zamoudio was the first gun owner to show up that was. Thank goodness that he, with formal gun training, had enough head about him not to draw his firearm upon seeing a man with the gun and multiple people bloodied and laying on the ground.

Our fair state of AZ doesn't legally require ANY training or license to conceal carry now. I think my point was that as the article said, soldiers with lots of formal training often still make "friendly fire" shootings in high stress situations. How more likely that a Wild West attitude where a bunch of untrained folks walking toward a shooting with good intentions and guns drawn would end up causing tragedy than bring peace?

The thing is, Joe Zamoudio had no formal training. From the article:

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

And he still managed to react like a rational human being and not start a random firefight. My point is not that training is unnecessary - training is not only useful but is a moral obligation for anyone who carries, regardless of state training requirements - but let's not carried away with the exaggerations abundant on both sides of the argument. I've seen this article on many news outlets after the Gifford shooting and it is rubbish. There were no concealed carry holders waving guns and the only armed civilian (a 24 year old, untrained "kid") on the scene made a good decision. Oh no, he "clicked off the safety", he could've have shot everyone there, if he had throwing knives he could've....if he tree frog poison and a sharpened toothbrush, etc.
What is also rubbish is the position of the other extreme that armed civilians is the solution to all violence problems in society. A rational middle ground is helpful.

Fundamentally, I don't disagree with you regrading what the default protocol should be for armed civilians in these cases. But life is full of exceptions.