Seven dead in Wisconsin after Deputy Sheriff opens fire.

[Osborn F Enready]

Seven dead in Wisconsin after deputy opens fire - Yahoo! News

FOXNews.com - Seven Dead, Including Shooter, After Wisconsin Rampage - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...-WISCONSIN.xml

CRANDON, Wisconsin — An off-duty sheriff's deputy went on an early morning shooting rampage at a home where seven young people had gathered for pizza and movies, killing six and critically injuring the other before authorities fatally shot him, officials said. The gunman, Tyler Peterson, was 20 years old and worked full-time as a Forest County deputy sheriff and part-time as a Crandon police officer, said Police Chief John Dennee. Three of the victims were students at the high school in this northern Wisconsin small town, and three were recent graduates, a school official said. The gunman may have graduated from the same high school. Peterson was not working at the time of the shooting early Sunday, Sheriff Keith Van Cleve said. The survivor was hospitalized, Dennee said. A Crandon police officer who fired back was treated for minor injuries and released. Gary Bradley, mayor of the city of about 2,000, said earlier Sunday that a sniper killed the suspect, but Van Cleve would not confirm that officers shot the suspect. It wasn't immediately clear what the gunman's motive was, but the mother of a 14-year-old victim said the suspect may have been a jealous boyfriend. The shooting occurred in a white, two-story duplex about a block from downtown Crandon. "It was a pizza and movie party," Dennee said.

What a damn shame.

And, these are the people, the only people, some want to have guns.

All people have a right to defense, for reasons exactly like this. :(

[donfie]

In 2005, gun crime accounted for 0.5% of violent crime and 0.1% of all crime in the UK.

In the USA in the same year, those figures were: 9% and 1.8% respectively.

I may be wrong (and I apologise in advance if I am) but the last shooting rampage in the UK happened in 1987.

If you look here:

http://www.businesscontinuity.info/workplace.htm

You can see how may have happened in the US since then (although this list only relates to workplace and school incidents.

The only way to stop gun violence is to get rid of guns. I do live in the real world and know that it isn't going to happen and I can't think of a workable way to do it but, I don't accept that more people having guns makes anything safer.

[Heather]

Os, it would be nice to actually hear a bit more about this incident. I watched this on the news last night, puzzled by the whole thing as no one seems to have any idea why or how this happened as of yet. One could speculate on the age of the shooter and assume that he may have known one of several of the people killed, but who knows. I'll keep an eye out for any new info on this.

I would have to agree in respects to being able to bear arms, but it would appear as though these kids that where killed where either not yet of age to carry a firearm or just barely.

[HelioPrime]

If the kids were around age 14 and the officer 20 then I would hope that there wasn't anything between a 14 yr old girl and a 20 yr old officer...

Of course that could be the reason, the deputy flipped because his 14 yr old girl send him an email saying were done. She could have even said she was going to go to the police. He could have seen his job ending and his life over. So he choose to take her out with him.

I'm sure some groups will try to use this to restrict guns in the hands of officers. Give them all tasers and pepperspray only untill they meet a certain rank.

[Osborn F Enready]

donfie said: The only way to stop gun violence is to get rid of guns.

That my friend, is a totally unrealistic, and impossible task.

Even if you had a magic wand that could remove EVERY gun on the planet with one fell swoop, there would be new guns to replace them in every level of the market, legal and illegal, within hours. Guns are easy to make, require little "knowledge" other than common sense for the more basic "zip guns", and all-out military style weapons can be made in less than an hour, even in 3rd world countries machine shops.

In the middle east, as well as Souteast Asia, there are several shops that can make you an exact copy of current weapons made in other nations, within hours. (I am talking about in villages of less than 500 people, and the wares usually sell for pennies on the dollar.)

Ammunition is often reloaded or made at home, and making ammunition is also a fairly simple process for a large majority of the world today.

Eradicating guns, can't happen, and many people like myself would NEVER let it happen, because of the obvious fallacy involved with thinking it could be done.

Its a utopic vision, built on a pacifistic ideology, that has little connection to reality.

donfie said: I do live in the real world and know that it isn't going to happen and I can't think of a workable way to do it but, I don't accept that more people having guns makes anything safer.

Well, I suggest you study some more, and own up to the facts.

Police, military, national guard, security personnel, private guards all carry guns, for a good reason. It is a cheap, effective, easily learnable method of self-defense, and the ONLY form of self-defense guaranteed to remove an imminent threat (assuming its employed correctly, the person is trained well and is familliar with their weapon, and the situation bears out the ability to react, or act once threat is clearly imminent, in a rights violation situation.

[Osborn F Enready]

Heather said: Os, it would be nice to actually hear a bit more about this incident.

Agreed.

Heather said: I watched this on the news last night, puzzled by the whole thing as no one seems to have any idea why or how this happened as of yet.

Regardless of the reasons, it seems he snapped, as all people can, no matter their education, background or "average" behaviour.

That was one of my points about this oft used argument that "police and authority personnel are the only ones we can trust to have guns". Nobody can be trusted 100%, which is why people reserve the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Heather said: One could speculate on the age of the shooter and assume that he may have known one of several of the people killed, but who knows. I'll keep an eye out for any new info on this.

Same here. I am not trying to make any point in this thread other than the fact that owning, knowing how to use, and having AVAILABLE a gun is the best method of defense.

Heather said: I would have to agree in respects to being able to bear arms, but it would appear as though these kids that where killed where either not yet of age to carry a firearm or just barely.

Whomever owned the house, or lived in the house, should have had access to a gun, at least, if it were my house they would have.

I am of the opinion that if every house had an arms owner, that was trained and kept access to their arms, crime would drop in two ways...... by attritition, as well as growing deterrent.

Since I was 12 years old, I have had access to a loaded gun, and since I was about 8, I have known how to handle, maintain and properly use a gun. I can only wish more people would do the same, to prevent situations like this that happened in Wisconsin.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: If the kids were around age 14 and the officer 20 then I would hope that there wasn't anything between a 14 yr old girl and a 20 yr old officer...

I don't think it is that far out of the realm of romance. When I was a senior in high school, I dated a freshman, and we eventually got married. I don't think the age issue was really an issue.

75 years ago, that age difference was quite common.

Helio said: Of course that could be the reason, the deputy flipped because his 14 yr old girl send him an email saying were done. She could have even said she was going to go to the police. He could have seen his job ending and his life over. So he choose to take her out with him.

Possibly. I am curious to find out more of the facts.

Helio said: I'm sure some groups will try to use this to restrict guns in the hands of officers. Give them all tasers and pepperspray only untill they meet a certain rank.

Most likely. Another "supposed excuse" to treat adults as kids, and offset more responsibility.

The sheeple will believe it, while the people with common sense just shake their heads and move on.

[Zeebadee]

Sure, having all the teenagers at these kind of "pizza and movies" parties armed with handguns would make things much safer. Throw in a little illicit alcohol, which has been known to happen, and the kids would be even more safe, right?

[Heather]

Quote by: HelioPrime If the kids were around age 14 and the officer 20 then I would hope that there wasn't anything between a 14 yr old girl and a 20 yr old officer... Of course that could be the reason, the deputy flipped because his 14 yr old girl send him an email saying were done. She could have even said she was going to go to the police. He could have seen his job ending and his life over. So he choose to take her out with him.

Do you have a source as to where you heard they were that young? It was my understanding that several of them had graduated high school. I think it's no more than frivolous speculation as to his relationship, if any, to those killed.

I'm sure some groups will try to use this to restrict guns in the hands of officers. Give them all tasers and pepperspray only untill they meet a certain rank.

This is certainly not the first time an officer has grossly abused his authority. I have no reason to believe that now would be the sudden time of such drastic change, nor should it be.

[Heather]

Quote by: Zeebadee Sure, having all the teenagers at these kind of "pizza and movies" parties armed with handguns would make things much safer. Throw in a little illicit alcohol, which has been known to happen, and the kids would be even more safe, right?

Not the point. The point is that everyone has the right to defend themselves. What did these kids have to defend themselves against this off duty officer shooting a gun at them Zee?

I'd wager nothing.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: Sure, having all the teenagers at these kind of "pizza and movies" parties armed with handguns would make things much safer.

Did I say that? No. You are trying to push to the extreme, and marginalize the point I was making, and rather shamefully so I might add.

Zee said: Throw in a little illicit alcohol, which has been known to happen, and the kids would be even more safe, right?

Again, is that what I said? No.

You are painting from the dark corners of your imagination again, and attempting to affix the message to me.

Please don't.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Heather Not the point. The point is that everyone has the right to defend themselves. What did these kids have to defend themselves against this off duty officer shooting a gun at them Zee?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Did I say that?

Well, yeah, I think it pretty much IS the point. You both seem to be making the point that these kids had no way to defend themselves. So how would they have, if they weren't armed themselves? Should all kids at these kind of parties be armed? Would that make them safer? Perhaps they should have a "designated shooter" at parties like this for protection. But what happens when the designated shooter flips out?

The "dark corners" of my imagination?? We have seven young people dead here. Seems to me that's a dark corner of reality.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee Well, yeah, I think it pretty much IS the point. You both seem to be making the point that these kids had no way to defend themselves.

That did seem to be the point. I would have used this thread to question the need for police in general, honestly. Really, there isn't much a cop can do that your average criminal couldn't.

But, alas, we live in a paranoid and deluded world where people fear that, when there are no longer authorities watching and guarding them, everything instantaneously falls apart.
Obviously, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and things fall apart under authority anyway, actually even faster.

Grandpa h.

[donfie]

Hey, call me an old Utopian.

I said that the only solution was to get rid of guns but I then went on to say that I'm not that stupid that I think it can now be done. (At least, that's what I meant to say).

Please don't quote out of context.

Well, I suggest you study some more, and own up to the facts. Police, military, national guard, security personnel, private guards all carry guns, for a good reason.

In America they do. Yes, the military in England do and there are special "armed response units" in the police, but the majority of beat coppers don't carry guns.

It is a cheap, effective, easily learnable method of self-defense, and the ONLY form of self-defense guaranteed to remove an imminent threat (assuming its employed correctly, the person is trained well and is familliar with their weapon, and the situation bears out the ability to react, or act once threat is clearly imminent, in a rights violation situation.

Yes, and all of those reasons apply to criminals and potential postal cases too.

The fact is that, in the UK, if I wanted to go on a rampage (the subject of the OP), I would find it very difficult to procure anything more than an immitation katana or my mums best carving knife. Yes I could kill but it woudn't be as easy or on the same level. [edit]

Your assertion in the OP is that, the prevalence and tendancy for people to use guns leads to the conclusion that only having more guns can keep people safe which then introduces more guns.

In England I fear getting mugged probably just as much as anyone does in America, but I don't fear being killed in that mugging and I definitely don't fear being shot (especially by someone with no previous criminal tendancies simply because I happened to be there).

The reality of your situation in America IS that you probably do need to arm yourself in order to provide your best chance of defence but the question must then arise, "Why has America got to that situation in the first place?"

[donfie]

I would have used this thread to question the need for police in general, honestly

I also don't submit to the "Lord of the Flies" theory about people without authority but I simply want the police there to do the actual dirty work of catching and stopping those that don't share the same values as most of us and would, given the opportunity and the stremgth, try to take advantage of the situation.

Just like I could probably take my own rubbish to the local tip but would rather someone did it for me.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: donfie The reality of your situation in America IS that you probably do need to arm yourself in order to provide your best chance of defence but the question must then arise, "Why has America got to that situation in the first place?"

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that some in this country are still laboring under the fantasy that the public will someday rise up in armed revolt against the ruling elite.

I also think the fact that the ruling elite haven't bothered to outlaw guns is clear evidence that they don't regard this sort of uprising as a serious threat.

[grandpa]

Quote by: donfie I also don't submit to the "Lord of the Flies" theory about people without authority but I simply want the police there to do the actual dirty work of catching and stopping those that don't share the same values as most of us and would, given the opportunity and the stremgth, try to take advantage of the situation. Just like I could probably take my own rubbish to the local tip but would rather someone did it for me.

I just don't like the idea of relegating basic security to someone else. I think it's as inherently dangerous as anything can be. We should all know that by now.

I also don't think anyone needs to "catch" and "stop" literally everyone who doesn't share mainstream values. There may be special cases for this kind of thing (serial rapists and serial murderers, for example), but a police state always emphasizes the "strength" of the measures and "punishment" against crime, but fails to consider the hypocrisy of police brutality, the inhumanity and sadism of prisons and basic questions of who will police the police.

I would rather see self-government, but that's ultimately illegal.

In this case, the authorities may have acted appropriately by killing this rampaging man. But again, that is something one needn't wear a badge to do.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

Can someone explain to me how a Sheriff's deputy who was not of legal age to own or possess a handgun, managed to obtain one for the use in this despicable act?

In my area, you can become a cop before you turn 21 but you can't carry a handgun until you are legally able to do so.

Also, I'm confused why this is an issue of "who will police the police" and not an issue of "How did someone who was clearly mentally unstable obtain a firearm in the first place." The prior implies cop perpetrated mass shootings are common place.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zee said: Well, yeah, I think it pretty much IS the point. You both seem to be making the point that these kids had no way to defend themselves.

Isn't their status (dead) proof of this?

Zee said:
So how would they have, if they weren't armed themselves?

Where was the adult who OWNED the home? Where was the owners KIN who knew if there was a gun, where it was, and did that person know how to use it? These are questions that should be addressed.

Zee said: Should all kids at these kind of parties be armed?

A better question..... should KIDS be having parties without responsible adults present? Child safety is a PARENTS or GUARDIANS responsibility, not a childs. If any of the dead were adults, they had a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and issues like this one should call clear the reason and necessity to take such actions.

Zee said: Would that make them safer?

There are an infinite number of variables at play there Zee, and you know it. More importantly, I was wondering why the people who owned the home weren't present, and if the child who did live there, had access to a weapon, and the knowledge and training to use it.

Zee said:
Perhaps they should have a "designated shooter" at parties like this for protection.

That is obviously a wry play on words for humor. I don't think its very funny.

Whomever owned that home, bears some responsibility.

Do you let your underage kids go to parties where no adults are present?
If not, why insist that adults are present? (could it be to deal with situations RESPONSIBLY?)

A responsible adult, if able, would have prevented this once the maniac started shooting, by shooting him, and could have probably saved many lives.

Zee said: But what happens when the designated shooter flips out?

Again.... more assumption and attempt at smearing the point.

Zee said: The "dark corners" of my imagination?? We have seven young people dead here. Seems to me that's a dark corner of reality.

The reality is that if one responsible, well trained, and armed adult was present, MANY lives could have been saved.

The reality is, that if the child who lived in the home had had access to a gun, known how to use it, and acted to do so, lives could most likely have been saved.

IS THAT NOT REALITY?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think it has a lot to do with the fact that some in this country are still laboring under the fantasy that the public will someday rise up in armed revolt against the ruling elite. I also think the fact that the ruling elite haven't bothered to outlaw guns is clear evidence that they don't regard this sort of uprising as a serious threat.

I see where this thread is headed--militias, gun rights, etc.
Okay, I'll bite.

I think of it this way: "Armed revolt against the ruling elite" is no panacea, but prevailing armed forces are under the control of corrupt powers--so it's no mystery why some would call for an armed uprising of some kind. I don't think it's complete nonsense. The question is, how would you overthrow an elite and not become just another elite position? How do you start a militant organization without creating your own class of tools? After all, just like guns aren't thieves or tyrants, neither are human tools who are just "following orders" (supposedly). Militarism still stands as a corrupting agent relegating responsibility, and people end up forcing others to change their behavior, rather than organizing in a more peaceful way to change their own communities more directly. When you have a gun, there is often a thin line between self-defense and mere belligerence.

Also, as many pacifists would note, violence against the government may only serve to strengthen it, as it feeds the idea that the only alternatives to existing governorship are even more direct forms of violence.

It's a messy issue, and gets us right back to the timeless "who will police the police" argument.

Grandpa h.