Worst Mass Slaying In Nebraska History Claims 9

[Chancellor]

Quote by: brien Hundreds, probably thousands, of people are murdered every year in the Middle East with suicide bombers so where is the outrage from the handwringing anti gunners. It isn't there because they are selective in their hypocrisy.

Yes, where indeed is their outrage? Their hypocrisy is indeed in their selective outrage.

[GHook93]

Quote by: jose have we had this conversation before? its not the guns that is the problem, its mind altering drugs Omaha Shooter Robert Hawkins Had Been "Treated" For ADHD, Depression

Yep so leave the person untreated, yep that is the answer?

I haven't seen so many great suggestion in one thread!

[Osborn F Enready]

Ghook said: Ron Paul is that you? Oz do you have an opinion that you have not formed from Radical Paul's propaganda machine?

Ghook, your personal insult BS is more than wearing thin. Shall I start reporting you for this nonsense more often?

Ghook said: There is a balancing test with every amendment in the constitution. If your right to carry guns is outweighed by the threat to society (such as being allowed to carry a firearm to a courthouse) then your right to carry the firearm is not protected!

Try to take it, and then have the balls to put yourself at the front of the line to collect those arms. I would look forward to meeting you in that situation, one of the few.

Ghook said: ==> Take a constitution law class before you self-proclaim yourself as an expert.

Speak for yourself.

Ghook said: More guns in civilians hands in that situation is not what is needed.

Prove it.

Ghook said: Going back to the wild west is not only a bad solution, its a brainless suggestion!

You are the only one suggesting it, so are you brainless?

Ghook said: If I own a mall I would be more worried about everyone carrying guns around and robbing the businesses in the mall or arguments turning into a gun fight, rather than a making sure the public was armed to take 1 crazy nut out.

Do you own a mall?

When you do, you can worry.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax, Ghook, you are both arguing with nonsense, so I will not be replying unless you meet the bar of reason.

Try it.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien In the absence of firearms, the guy could have merely strolled into the crowded mall and detonated a bomb around his waist and probably have killed more than 9 people. He killed himself immediately so it is clear he was suicidal. Where is the same outrage from you anti gunners when people in the ME commit mass murder with bombs?

When people start blowing each other up down there with bombs, then you may hear something.

So what will you do after the guns are all gone? Eliminate every way to make a bomb? Absurd

Guns are restricted here in Canada, yet I don't see people blowing each other up with bombs because they can't get ahold of a gun. Trying to balance between the lesser of two evils isn't working very well here.

You selective vocals, with all of your singular "outrage" and disdain, never cease to make me laugh when you cherry pick issues to make those of us who agree with the 2nd Amendment out to be "gun nuts." Will you ever learn it is people who kill people and not inanimate objects? Probably not because then you won't have anything to be outraged about then will you?

Who said I'm outraged? I couldn't care less about the idiot who killed everybody and those who died..... people die everyday in one manner or another.

I see a flaw, I'm pointing it out..... it's not like you guys even brought up a solution to these continual problems of shootings, except to add more guns to the equation.... pssh, good luck with that one.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien This self serving statement is absurd. Try prosecuting people who commit crimes with firearms with a swift and certain penalty that will assure criminals that when they use firearms they will be removed from society for a long period of time.

I guess that won't work in this situation since he already died by his own hands and his own gun.

When you all are through with your self serving arguments, you may want to consider prosecuting criminals rather than blaming firearms.

The moment you guys catch one who doesn't kill themselves in the end, perhaps someone might.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: GHook93 Yep so leave the person untreated, yep that is the answer? I haven't seen so many great suggestion in one thread!

There is absolutely no evidence that psychiatry and psychology have ever cured anyone. They are dubious at best.

Can a psychiatrist tell what's wrong? - By Michael Brus - Slate Magazine

* Is Psychology a science?

Psychology - Science or Religion?

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: The moment you guys catch one who doesn't kill themselves in the end, perhaps someone might.

You miss the point.

This person was suicidal.

What would have been lost by the first victim being able to give him that wish, BEFORE HE TOOK INNOCENT LIFE?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Prax, Ghook, you are both arguing with nonsense, so I will not be replying unless you meet the bar of reason. Try it.

Pssh... loosing the argument a bit are we?

I have posted rational arguments with logic within based on my own life experiences as well as my own society as an example of much lower rates of gun related murders and lunatics with guns.....

What have you done so far? "It's our right to have them"..... and that's pretty much it to your defense without actually addressing a logical solution to future incidences such as this.... well, except loading everybody back up with guns like the ol' wild wild west...... there's progression to an advanced society and leaders of the free world

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said: Pssh... loosing the argument a bit are we?

Not at all.

I simply refuse to argue with unreasonable people, as it lowers the debate to their level, which brings about nothing but nonsense and illogical folly.

Prax said: I have posted rational arguments with logic within based on my own life experiences as well as my own society as an example of much lower rates of gun related murders and lunatics with guns.....

And as usual, you post a few things, lacking any real cause and effect ties, due to the lack of investigation into those statistics, so it really amounts to nothing.

I have nothing to gain by arguing such nonsense, and to argue against it would validate it, which is not my intention, since it deserves no validation.

Prax said: What have you done so far? "It's our right to have them"..... and that's pretty much it to your defense without actually addressing a logical solution to future incidences such as this.... well, except loading everybody back up with guns like the ol' wild wild west...... there's progression to a advanced society

Try re-reading. Don't insult my intelligence again if you expect me to maintain a friendly status with you again.

You are making an argument that people have no right to defense with arms, when I have clearly show it is not only our LEGAL RIGHT, but also our LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.

You have not made a case against those points, nor can you, using logic and reason, so instead you turn to emotion and patriotism.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You miss the point.

Did I?

This person was suicidal.

Yes I know....

What would have been lost by the first victim being able to give him that wish, BEFORE HE TOOK INNOCENT LIFE?

Well if we hypothetically look at the various angles of this situation.... first your person in question would have to realize this guy was about to pull a gun and shoot everybody before he actually did.

Then you have to put into account if this person would be accurate and effective with his first shot in order to avoid a stray hitting someone else who was innocent and potientially killing them.... this situation was inside a mall with hundreds of other people inside. With no proper regulations or firearm training requirements for people to take, I don't have a lot of faith that an average joe off the streets would become a hero with his 6-shooter.

Then you have to put into account what would occur if he missed the shooter, hit someone innocent, and in turn, more people who own their guns for the right of protection would direct their attention to the two shooters, not knowing who's the innocent protecting other innocents, and who's the guilty one with the death wish.

At the best case in this situation, both are shot to death by other citizens and when the police arrive, then you have a whole other situation to deal with..... two people are now dead and you have a handful of more suspects with firearms who you now have to determine at the time if it was defense or are they the original shooters...... who was the original shooter, why was someone shot and killed by someone who was not the shooter..........

either way, your hypothetical can hypothetically go in all kinds of directions..... none would garuntee more lives would have been saved.

Quite honestly, if I was a shooter bent on taking a bunch of people with me, I'd target anybody who presented a firearm.... armed people would be target number one for me, regardless of my suicidal tendancies. He wanted to be famous, and just killing yourself doesn't make you all that famous unless you take innocent people with you.... it seems to be a fad down there with shooters.

[Osborn F Enready]

I didn't make the FALSE accusation that it WOULD have saved more lives.

I said LOGIC DICTATES this could have been the case.

YOU MADE the accusation that removing arms WOULD SAVE LIVES, and have yet to show proof of this, as you always do fail to show proof of this, as it is not provable.

You can argue till you are blue in the face prax, the fact is, DEFENSE is the only option against unjust force, other than being a victim, if running away isn't an option.

The agressor determines if this is an option, and I refuse to bow to the wishes of the aggressor.

Being armed gives me a choice, and being trained makes that choice more viable and reasonable.

I'll take more choices over less choices ANY DAY.

[Muser]

Societal ills - and not the gun itself - are to blame. Here is but one of the possible societal ills that can create this type of person - the person and their state of mind happens beforethe gun ever comes into relevance:

Omaha Shooter Robert Hawkins Had Been "Treated" For ADHD, Depression

It's a little known fact that antidepressant drugs have never been tested on children nor approved by the FDA for use on children. It is well established in the scientific literature, however, that such drugs cause young men to think violent thoughts and commit violent acts. This is precisely why the U.K. has outright banned the prescribing of such drugs to children. Yet here in the United States -- the capitol of gun violence by kids on depression drugs -- the FDA and drug companies pretend that mind-altering drugs have no link whatsoever to behavior.

Warning: the writer has his own agenda, not the least of which is being quite critical of the FDA - something I find no fault with whatsoever; however, the various studies referenced concerning increased risks of violent (or suicidal) behavior when using anti-depressants (i.e. Paxil, Prozac, etc.), are very real, regardless of any bias on the writer's part.

I'm not throwing this into the mix as "the answer", per se; rather, I reference the article as evidence that it's one of the multitude of ills this society suffers that breeds violent and criminal behavior. Media glorification of murder and illegal weapon use; the despair of poverty; the importance this nation as a whole places on wealth; decline of education; drug abuse - are but a minute fraction of the ways that the US breeds criminal lust to ridiculous levels. There are many more. And that's the whole point - it's not as black and white as anti-gun advocates choose to believe; rather, it's numerous shades of grey. Anti-gun advocates seem unwillingly to address the core elements that breed criminal and violent behavior; it's akin to advocating cutting off a branch in hopes of saving a diseased root.

Removing guns will have no effect on the real elements that breed violent and criminal actions. What is it that separates the criminal from the law-abiding citizen? Until you address that, violence and criminal lust will remain, even if you remove guns from the equation (as if that's even possible, but that's a separate issue).

As long as we're unable to address and radically improve the elements that breed violence and criminal lust, law-abiding citizens need and have every right to defend themselves from same, using the most reasonable, effective and successful means possible.

[Edit] Missed jose's initial reference to this article - oops.

[Jack]

Quote by: Chancellor Nine people were killed? Oh, that's really a tragedy! Yeah, right! What about the 70 or more miners who were killed in China (TV: China mine blast kills at least 70 - China - MSNBC.com Why is that not a tragedy? Why is nine people in Nebraska worthy of our attention but the more than 70 in China aren't? I guess a person's death becomes more meaningful if it was caused by some madman on a rampage than if it was caused by a work-related accident. Yeah, right!

That sadly does seem to be the case. The more sensational the death, the more likely it is to receive notice. Add to that the fact that mine collapses are still a real and present danger in our own society and an embarrassing topic for the mine owners whenever the topic arises. I'm sure they're delighted to see incidents like this overlooked by the press.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ghook, your personal insult BS is more than wearing thin. Shall I start reporting you for this nonsense more often?

How was that an insult?

Try to take it, and then have the balls to put yourself at the front of the line to collect those arms. I would look forward to meeting you in that situation, one of the few.

I support ones right to own firearms. It is a fundamental part of our society and one I agree with, but I not in every situation! Bring a gun onto private property as protection is not the solution. If you allow that in Beverly Hills Mall are you going to allow that in Compton? It causes more problems than it would solves. The same broken theory was suggested after the VT shooting. Arming college students (especially during finals time) is a poor solution!

Also was that a threat? Tough guy over the computer !

Speak for yourself.

A in both ConLaw I & II from an accredited college!

Prove it.

Not enough time!

You are the only one suggesting it, so are you brainless?

The initial post stated that if everyone was armed this wouldn't happen. The Wild West is charaterized as everyone being armed! That is what is being suggested!

Do you own a mall?

Give me time my friend!

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not at all. I simply refuse to argue with unreasonable people, as it lowers the debate to their level, which brings about nothing but nonsense and illogical folly.

Now you know why I get frustrated all the time

And as usual, you post a few things, lacking any real cause and effect ties, due to the lack of investigation into those statistics, so it really amounts to nothing.

Sigh.....

Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International Context

Comparisons Between Canada and the United States Studies have also compared the rates of death from firearms in Canada with those in the United States. One of the most well-known studies was a comparison of Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia.16 More recently, the costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries were compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States and $195 per resident in Canada.10 Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. Handguns have required licensing and registration in Canada since the 1930s. Ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right, and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns.17,18 Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few people (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that his or her life is in danger and the police cannot protect the person. As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 77 million. Although there are other factors affecting rates of murder, suicide and unintentional injury, a comparison of data in Canada with US data suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is slightly higher (1.7 times) than that in Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate

There are other goodies there to you can read up on.

I have nothing to gain by arguing such nonsense, and to argue against it would validate it, which is not my intention, since it deserves no validation.

Your loss not mine.

Try re-reading. Don't insult my intelligence again if you expect me to maintain a friendly status with you again.

You should realize by now that I have very little care for friendships here... if my opinion dose not match your own, I'm not about to sugar coat it so I can have a couple of online buddies.

Once again.... what is your solution in preventing this from happening again? I'm still waiting.

You are making an argument that people have no right to defense with arms, when I have clearly show it is not only our LEGAL RIGHT, but also our LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY. You have not made a case against those points, nor can you, using logic and reason, so instead you turn to emotion and patriotism.

You speak of legal rights and responsibilities, yet they still have not solved the problems at hand, nor will they.

I don't care two rats tails about what is legal and what is not.... it's about what is right and what is wrong.... what works and what doesn't. The right to bear arms is not improving the security and safety of your streets.

And once again, human emotion is a part of humanity, and although I have yet to even express emotions in this thread topic, but rather what is logical to me and where I live, how things mentally affect people must be put into considderation in collective decisions.

If you make decisions for the collective to follow without calculating exactly how those decisions will affect them mentally and physically, and you don't considder how everyone feels about something.... then where is the humanity? This works all well and good if you want people thinking like machines and a communistic society.....

[GHook93]

Quote by: Praxius Guns are restricted here in Canada, yet I don't see people blowing each other up with bombs because they can't get ahold of a gun. Trying to balance between the lesser of two evils isn't working very well here.

Guns are restricted in Canada? I thought one of Michael Moore's themes in anti-gun documentary (the name evades me right now) was that Canada has similar gun laws to the US, but they don't off each other in record numbers!

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chancellor There is absolutely no evidence that psychiatry and psychology have ever cured anyone. They are dubious at best. Can a psychiatrist tell what's wrong? - By Michael Brus - Slate Magazine * Is Psychology a science? Psychology - Science or Religion?

I have seen people seem a hell of a lot better after they have taken some anti-depression drugs.

And ADHD doesn't make you prone to killing people like depression does!

[brien]

When people start blowing each other up down there with bombs, then you may hear something.

Bullshit Praxius. It happens almost every day in the ME. It happened in Ok City. Where was the cry for the confisgation of the bomb making equipment after Mc Veigh blew up the Murrow Bldg?

[brien]

Quote by: Praxius I guess that won't work in this situation since he already died by his own hands and his own gun. The moment you guys catch one who doesn't kill themselves in the end, perhaps someone might.

If someone is bent upon suicide, then they can use a gun, a car, a truck, a train, a bomb, etc.. You obviously can't prosecute them. You fail to address the real point that the US doesn't prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who use firearms during the commission of a crime. This is the real issue, not the weapon of choice.

When the punishment is severe, swift and certain, it will deter many people. Those it doesn't will find themselves incarcerated for a long, long time, if the government is serious about the prosecution. How many times do I have to write it isn't the firearm, it is the person who uses the firearm, that needs to be prosecuted here. When someone uses a car to run down a bunch of people and kill them, you don't blame the car do you? Of course not, you blame the person. I get so tired of this all.

I understand this guy in Omaha was hell bent upon killing people and going out in a "big way." If he didn't have access to his uncles rifle, he would have found another way to do it. So, the fact that he used a gun to commit his own suicide is irrelevant because he would have probably found another, perhaps even more effective way to kill even more people along with himself, if he didn't have access to the rifle. The rifle has very little to do with the event(mass murder) in this situation. It is mostly about the man and his intent to kill himself and other people.