E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 7:43 a.m. ET: NORCROSS, Ga. -- A gunman opened fire at a spa in an Atlanta suburb on Tuesday, leaving five people dead in what authorities described as a murder-suicide.
Surveillance video shows a man walking into the spa and getting into an argument with someone, then opening fire, police said.
"It appears he walked in, had some conversation with one of the victims and the shooting started," Norcross Police Chief Warren Summers told Atlanta television station WAGA.
Summers told reporters at the scene that preliminary evidence suggested the shooting may have been a murder-suicide.
Four people were found dead inside, and another was taken to a hospital before being pronounced dead, Norcross police Capt. Brian Harr told the Gwinnett Daily Post. Police described the dead as three men and two women.
Harr told Reuters that the shooter was believed to be among the dead. Police said that they did not consider any suspects to be at large.
Investigators say they believe about 20 people were inside when the shooting began around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Su Jung Health Sauna in Norcross.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is working with local police on the case.
Norcross is a city of some 10,000 people located about 20 miles northeast of Atlanta.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Race-based admissions? Supreme Court to hear case
- Making a Difference: Kids fishing for (and catching) success
- Rev. Graham: Obama seen as 'son of Islam'
- Lawmaker: 'Radical' Girl Scouts out to destroy American values
- Where do problem teachers go? LA's 'rubber room'
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Attention Murder/Suicide perps: START WITH YOURSELF.
REally! Why take others with you! If your gonna do it, just do it to yourself!!! :(
Maybe, they agreed to him taking them out first because they were too afraid to do it themselves??? Humm???
I understand the intent of your comment, but it's far more complicated than that. The problem is, suicide (actually, the thoughts that lead up to it) are a mental health *disease*. Yes, it really is classified as a disease. Our brains are born 'wired' to kill ourselves. A disease takes over. Not unlike many other socially or chemical-inluenced diseases. In fact, there are even studies out that link it to the same types of build-ups and deterioration of brain cells and neuro networks that account for autism, ADD/ADHD, forms of dementia, and so on. Like I say, it's very, VERY complex.
For the same reasons that it's very difficult to stop a person from committing it to themselves, it's equally difficult for them to rationalize not killing others.
If I were a liberal, I'd be focusing on just repealing laws that make murder a crime. Then we'd all be safer and there'd be less crime.
Right?
Makes about as much sense as telling people without health insurance that now it's against the law to not have it...so, by doing absolutely nothing you get to become a criminal.
As a side note, it's kinda funny that my post triggered a "spam" alert...must be because I used "liberal". We don't want no poking fun at liberals 'round here, boy.
Yeah...right. Like I could ever be a liberal. Well, maybe if someone shot me in the head.........
Well considering that liberals have never advocated the legalization of homicide (at least, in the real world they haven't), then your point is moot.
That would make you a liberal alright. Or at least related.
Well, if I were a conservative I would be focusing on passing a constitutional amendment which not only ensured the right to bear arms but mandated that all citzens be forced to carry a handgun of some sort in a holster at all times. Then we'd be all safer and there would be less crime.
Of course, since we're all packing the would be no further need for government spending on police or courts as we could solve all our problems the way the founding fathers intended, and indeed, practiced: through the time-tested practice of dueling in the streets Marshall Dillon "Gunsmoke"-style.
Right?
Makes about as much sense as knowing you need health insurance, buying it, and then complaining that the government now telling you to do what you already know you're supposed to do in the first place. Or do nothing and continue to sponge off those who paid for their insurance by raising their rates in your libertarian moralistic inaction.
Yeah, right. Like "I" could ever be a conservative. I'm not a large enough of a tool to meet the entrance requirements.
Clearly, a happy ending was denied =(
J R Browenstein--Stop where you are and step slowly away from the satire; you really do not have the knack.
Look laws against murder prevent some murders--we don't know how many because, you know, they don't get committed. This is also the reason we have laws against most things--not to prevent them, but to curtail them, and to punish those who commit them so that perhaps they will not do it again. That's the way laws have always worked--or did you not notice?
The new healthcare mandate does not make people "criminals" for failing to buy health insurance. However, it is against the law, you know, not to have insurance on a car if you want to drive it. By doing "absolutely nothing," you become a criminal--the same way that you will be a criminal by failing to send your child to school or providing for his/her schooling or for failing to keep your property maintained. It's always worked that way.
The REPUBLICAN mandate that people should have to buy insurance and stop sponging off everyone else by going to the emergency room and then skipping town is not an entirely bad one--they proposed it back when Bill Clinton was in office as an alternative to "Hillarycare," and they put it into place in Massachusetts (where it was signed into law by Mitt Romney). They like the law in Massachusetts, though the people there do think it needs some tweaking (particularly because it appears to be harming small businesses).
If a person doesn't get health insurance, then the person has to pay into a fund which will then be used to pay the bills for those who needed emergency care and didn't buy health insurance. It isn't even a lot of money. This is just like paying for Medicare or Social Security--you have to do it, and if you don't, someone is going to garnish it from your wages. If you do not like it, there are lots of other (undeveloped) countries to which you can move. Mexico is nearby, if they will take you (don't worry--they don't enforce their laws against people coming in unless those people don't work).
Seriously, if you cannot understand that emergency rooms shouldn't deny care because they don't happen to know how the bill will get paid, I hope that you one day wind up rushing to a hospital with the proof that your loved one has insurance while that loved one bleeds to death during the wait. Someone has to pay for the health care that people receive--either the people who receive it, or the rest of us. I'd rather that people paid their own way--and that's why I don't mind the health care mandate (too much).
What solution do you have--or is it just letting people bleed to death if they don't have their "papers" on them? Or because the papers got ruined in that car accident or flood or tornado or earthquake or . . . .
There is the same debate after every gun massacre and let’s face it no one is going to change their minds. But relax pro gunners your paranoid, delusional fantasies notwithstanding, no one is going to take your toys away. The gun control debate is all but settled. The horrific civilian massacre is just the price American society will have to pay over and over and over again. It’s just another typical day in American daily life where any psycho, criminal or terrorist can get a weapon either legally or illegally because They have their rights! It’s the daily shooting rampage, and you are right guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Guns just make it easy to kill people because any moron can pull a trigger. So get use to the carnage this is America land of the gun so what’s the big deal.
@!$%# Liberals , @!$%# Georgia and this Crooked ass goverment.This entire state is ASS backwards.
Your correct Witchking.... Any psyco , criminal or terrorist can get a weapon.. Just look at most of our police officers or any other goverment official required or even not to carry a weapon.!!!!
There is NO excuse for this kind of EvilDoing.
@Witchking, I get the sarcasm of your comment. Clearly you think banning guns will miraculously solve all the gun crimes in the whole country. Because the similar banning of drugs makes them impossible to get and in fact hardly no one in the whole country ever uses any illegal drugs, because they're banned of course. Never mind the fact that I can guarantee you that in every single city, in every single state in the entire country there is illegal drug use. But hey, don't let anyone rain down reality on your sarcastic little land of delusion.
you put a gun in every legal citizen hand after trained.... and you will see a drop in crime across the board.
until the illegal gun owners see that they are out numbered, there will be some Innocent people go down trying to protect themselves. but just as fast, the illegal gun owners will be dropping and backing up and rethinking how law abiding people aren't going to be setting victims anymore... and crime will drop in ALL FORMS.
I just like to see gun owners squirm. You know they are losing it when they willingly come to liberal web sites to rant to those who already see them as unbalanced. So, are any of my liberal brothers and sisters converted...after being called every name in the book by over emotional gun owners? Didn't think so...lol.
Georgia has Asians? I hear you can get a mean back rub at those places - and for a few dollars more, a mean front rub too.
You anti-firearm types are severely lacking the mental faculties necessary to process reality. It is reality that in municipalities wherein firearms are banned, that said municipalities lead the nation in crime per-capita. Examples of this are D.C., and Chicago. D.C. has, until the recent Heller decision, ruled the roost for years nationally in crime. Now that figure is plummeting because average joe has the means with which to defend himself. It is not perfect, and will require more litigation as receiving your firearm is still a highly bureaucratized dismal pursuit of paperwork agony, but it is getting better.
As a US combat veteran, let me lay a healthy dose of real life on you.
The police are NOT here to protect you, and have no duty to do so. (Castle Rock v. Gonzalez)
Your life is your responsibility, and yours alone. In the critical moment you must defend yourself, it is imperative that you have the tools available to do the job. It is a whimsical, laughable pipe-dream that police can and will be there for you in time to save your life, or that "retreat" is the road of noble men. You have a right to life, and a right to defend said life.
In the split seconds determining whether you live or die, it is of absolute priority that you be able to quickly respond, and quickly end, any and all escalations. Throwing away your life is not the way to do it.
To this end, many liberals (and some conservatives) grasp at removing the tool containing the potential to save your life, and in fact, to even deter threats against it, rather than finding other solutions that do not employ endangering those who abide by the law, and rewarding those who do not.
Newsflash for the uninformed, kiddos: Criminals are criminals because they do not care to follow the law.
Therefore firearms restrictions do a ton of good in creating a soft underbelly for the criminals of society to pilfer at will.
FBI research itself has proven that criminals don't prefer armed targets. The mere sign of armed individuals will deter them the majority of the time, as softer targets are less threatening and equally rewarding. While this does not constitute every engagement, it is an extremely accurate reality that one can comfortably live by.
You hear a ton of rhetoric about law enforcement getting their guns grabbed from them, but what most imbeciles cannot grasp is that typically the confrontation with the criminal is forced on behalf of the officer. Therefore, the criminal has already been cornered, and fight/flight invoked.
To the individual of questionable mental stature above who implied that an armed populace would act as replacement for law enforcement:
Are you mentally retarded?
Things a law abiding gun owner is interested in:
-Being able to defend themselves, their property and their family
Things a law abiding gun owner is not interested in:
-Writing parking tickets
-Catching speeders
-Responding to calls in progress
-Responding to motor vehicle accidents to document and investigate
-Investigating missing peoples and dedicating significant time and capital to locate them
...etc. etc. etc.
For the person who stated that stupidity, I have about as much desire to act as an law enforcement officer in my role as being a law abiding firearms owner as I do to hear you ramble on with more irrational dribble. That is to say, the desire is non-existent.
I wonder about if the perp are really one of the dead it seems that a lot of these are, just Oh yea We're sure the shooter is amoung the dead, makes me wonder if it just so they can close the case without checking what really happened ... Don't get me wrong if the shooter left a note saying Yes I did it then I would have to believe it but it just seems like of the last bunch this was the line given and We are talking withing the first 30 minutes of the crime, NO note, no nothing seems a little strage to me ...
If there were a way to ensure that the gun nuts were only shooting other gun nuts... *sigh*
Sadly, it's the usual suspects shooting the innocent again and again.
Now we'll read how this could have been avoided if the victims in the spa had been armed too.
Freedom to bear arms...whoopee.
hey rick, they have this neat little invention called "video". It takes successive pictures and plays them back at a speed that makes it appear that the subjects captured on "film" are moving. Most businesses get them, at least to watch the lobbies and registers.
A Shootout is always better than a Massacre......too bad nobody shot back at the murderer when he first pointed his gun at someone.....
kaybeetoys, you need to grow up, a toy gun isn't gonna help you when the police are still trying to get thru traffic while the women in your'e home are getting raped or killed. Criminals will always find a way to have weapons. It's up to you to protect yourself! Grow up!!!!
Common guns are heavily regulated in places like Chicago, DC and NYC because they already HAD large levels of gun violence. It was a response to crime, it didn't cause an increase in crime. It's also meant to specifically target illegal gun owners and users.
It's been dubbed a "murder-suicide". So early in the morning and everyone has a comment about the left or the right. Why doesn't anyone actually discuss the article instead of throwing in rhetoric about it's the democrats fault, no it's the Republicans fault. Why not just say that it was a disgruntled worker, or husband of a wife who works at the spa, (irregardless of affiliation to any party), who snapped and killed. Himself included. Too bad they never start out on themselves first. They always seem to leave the dumbest for last.
The crime you speak of in those specific cities are due to (or were due to) MOB crime back in the 30's. When everyone had "Tommy Guns". At least this is true for Chicago and NYC. As for DC, I think they just wanted to feel safer amongst the masses they were "ruling over". You would be surprised as heck to know how many of your elected reps in DC have an AR-15 in the closet of their office.
capt, in fact the use of guns in crimes went UP! look at the cities with the highest gun grime rates, they have the strictest gun laws.
When in doubt "Kill" period, cops, perps thats how country acts now, like Rambo.
You tell 'em, JR!
Guns don't kill people, health insurance does!
(Which is why health insurance needs to be heavily regulated to ensure that no one is denied needed medical treatment as a means of boosting corporate profits.)
lusi, the fact that across the nation gun crime is lower now than in the '60's, makes you statement invalid.
Careful JR, you might get what you wish for.
Now I know given that you have made such clarifying statement that you have data to back that up right?
And no - Fox News doesnt count.
CIEWYWTB
Don't sell yourself short you are a big enough tool.
the CDC statistics on death shows the rates of death, by region and cause. also the FBI statistics confirming those results, NOT fox news.
just like the "summer of the shark" spread panic when the number of shark attacks had gone down, the media YOU watch, with it's political agenda firmly displayed, has hyped crime numbers.
There are many possible sides of the problem (e.g. financial: was he arguing over money?; healthcare: was the murderer inclined toward violence that could have been treated with medication; social: did he grow up isolated or in a family that encouraged extreme violence?) and any one solution isn't going to completely eradicate it. I've heard a lot of talk about gun control on the site (e.g. more guns would make the criminal too afraid to act, less guns wouldn't have given him the ability to kill multiple people so quickly), and both are true but impractical in this country. I once suggested a high bullet tax (e.g. $250 per bullet) that would limit the access of bullets to those who don't have a great incentive to shoot them off wildly but good luck getting that kind of thing passed in a country where everyone has all the rights they can conjure up without any responsibility. So where's the solution and is there one? There is one and I will allow my tiny brain to share it, but I don't see it ever passing.
There are two parts. The first part is capital punishment. We must allow for the state to put criminals to sleep who have committed murder and other violent crimes and we must allow it all capital punishment to be carried out in no shorter than 5 years. This does two things. First, it sends a message to criminals that YES, you will die pretty soon if you are caught murdering someone (research shows that IS a deterrent) and second it saves the taxpayers money. If anyone thinks it makes more sense keeping some man, locked in a cage for so many years they go insane in the vain hope that technology or new proof will give them a lottery winner's chance to live is worth the same amount of money that could be GIVEN to an underprivileged kid to go to an IVY LEAGUE college, well, I'd like to see you writing support checks to the state to support that view.
This alone would go a long way, but here comes the REAL revolutionary thought. Again, from a tiny brain so bear with me.
We MUST deny convicted felons many of the legal rights and privileges GOOD citizens take for granted. Should a convicted sex-offender be allowed the SAME right against search and seizure a non-sex offender is? Why? And the same with violent offenders. Allowing them the same rights implies they are worthy of the same trust we have from non-felons, which they are not and which they take advantage of in the legal system. And punishments must be SEVERE for second offenses. A felon carrying a gun should be put to death. A felon convicted of rape or assault- death. Letting them back in society after gaining a felony conviction IS a second chance. We can't afford to offer them more than that and shouldn't.
Would all of this deterred this incident? Who knows. But I would bet the guy has prior offenses and in that case...
WITCHKING
Why is it paranoid and delusional to want to protect yourself? Obviously there is a need. I am going to go out on a limb and say thisprick didn't have that weapon legally nor did the prick who killed all the people in the pharmacy in Long Island. As we all know NYC's archaic gun laws would never allow any one not rich or in favor with the Naziesque government there to even own a handgun therefore gun laws once again fell short.
Are you so blindly stupid to believe this man would have never hurt anyone if he didn't have access to gun? You on the gun grabbing left never fail to forget that the majority of gun crimes are committed by those who have broken the law by their very touching a firearm, they do not acquire these weapons legally therefore all the gun laws in the world will not stop them. What they will do is stop the law abiding citizens from exercising their GOD GIVEN RIGHT of self-defense.
Your arguments are the same played out @!$%# that liberal pukes have been trying forever and thankfully they are ignored. Not any terrorist, psycho, etc... can get a gun legally. Legal firearms are sold after a check of the local, state, and federal databases that eliminate criminals and mental defects. As for terrorists-watch much CNN? It took a box cutter to perpetrate the largest most deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil not a firearm. Legally owned firearms save thousands of lives a year but the lame0stream media would never report on such.
You and your Cool-Aid gulping gun grabbing tree hugging buddies should try to argue using facts such as Maine a state with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation has one of the lowest murder rates. Vermont allows anyone able to own a handgun the right to carry without a permit, yet again one of the lowest murder rates in the nation. On the other hand DC where no one can carry and up until Heller basically no one could even own a firearm has one of the highest murder rates as does Chicago-another place that doesn't allow concealed carry of a firearm and where it is almost impossible to own one.
It is the rampant ignorance of the knee jerking gun grabbers like yourself who would rather blame guns when something like this happens as opposed to trying to find the real cause.
this is a tight knit Korean group, all dead are Korean immigrants and shooter also; appears to do with outstanding loans; police are having a problem , since no one speaks English very well; the Korean Pastor, has been called in to translate from the witnesses; we are now the dumping ground of the world.
KAY
"GUN NUTS?" I guess allowing you to speak would make you a Freedom of Speech Ass or a Separation of Church and State moron? Maybe you should realize that us nuts are most often law abiding citizens who have and carry firearms to protect ourselves for the tide of scumbags that patrol the streets looking to take advantage of others. Relegating all gun owners to the category of nuts is like me calling all gun grabbing liberals @!$%#s.
saxon "we are now the dumping ground of the world."
statements like this remind me of how uneducated most americans are about the shortest of histories - America. We've only been around for a few hundred years, not that much to learn really...
we've always been a dumping ground, in fact it's the entire reason america exists...the worlds poor, hungry and desperate have always come crawling to american shores...and your ancestors are not withstanding.
CommoDog................Very well said. I was going to post something but no need. You said it better than I probably could have.
kaybeetoys...........if there were only a way to ensure that criminals only shot other criminals......"sigh"
Wolfman - Liberals calling people "gun nuts" is their way to easily separate their actions (what they deem as the norm) from what people with guns do. Their norm has nothing to do with guns. Be it ignorance, lack of willingness to understand, or in most cases fear. People with guns will always be labeled as "nuts" from liberals because liberals have no understanding of which concerns them the most, guns. That's what makes them liberals. They can say they understand, but they don't, and probably never will.
People who own guns, legally, and engage in proper gun safety and usage are not the ones to be feared. Implementing laws against said individuals will do nothing to prevent crime, just help liberals sleep better at night because they think they will have removed guns from the "nuts". They couldn't be further from the truth.
until saxon's post , I was thinking "redneck divorce" . But I stayed up too late last night watching "Justified".
JESSICA
"we've always been a dumping ground, in fact it's the entire reason america exists...the worlds poor, hungry and desperate have always come crawling to american shores...and your ancestors are not withstanding"
I am sure I will get banned for this but WTF. You are an uneducated piece of sh!t on the shoe of the greatest nation in history-so FU(K YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just don't understand shooting innocent bystanders with these types of incidents ?? I guess when you are mentally ill there is no understanding at all??
@ Saxon, I don't know if you could attribute these people being here to the US being a "dumping ground", as they appear to be business owners and very likely contribute to the local economy in a number of ways, like most small business owners. I think your comment was just meant to a bigoted one because they didn't speak English well, which is just you being an a-hole...
chudd; not only their ethnic community's, not speaking English, but not adopting a new culture, a new way of life, anew philosophy, a new country; they refuse to adopt, they keep their own community's, they do not blend into the society, that they chose to settle in; in plain words they do not belong here if they do not want to be Americans; that goes for the Muslims, Hispanic , Asian, Haitian community's; no nation may long survive if it is Balkans.
Any man who has a family and doesn't learn to use and keep a firearm in the house is a coward. I actually heard this from a woman. Her reasoning was, if a burglar/murderer/rapist gains entry to your house, it stands to reason that he/she has some kind of weapon. The "man" of the house, out-armed, can only sit by while his daughter and wife are raped and all of them murdered. This is pre-planned in his coward mind so that he doesn't have to do anything heroic to save his family and risk being hurt or killed. "But, he had a gun/knife. There was nothing I could do!" Coward.
@ Saxon, your problem is with our Constitution, not with immigrants that choose to maintain their cultural heritage in this country. It is not illegal to maintain your culture differences in this country, and immigrants are protected under the Constitution to practice their beliefs (that includes their language). I think your argument is flawed in this case anyway, as they appear to have assimilated enough to start a business and pay taxes just like any other small business does. You just appear to have an issue with any other nationalities that don't look or speak the way you do. There's a lot that can be learned from other cultures, but instead, you rather eradicate any notion of cultural differences. It's a very xenophobic stance your taking. I'm glad I live in a country that has as much cultural diversity as our nation does.
chudd; cultural diversity is great, refusing to adopt to a new culture (while keeping your own ) is not what built this nation; e plurbus unium , is more that a saying , it is what this nation was built on .
@ Saxon, also, the children of migrants almost NEVER maintain only the language of their parents. The first generation of immigrants to the US typically have issues learning a new language, and have throughout history, while their children grow up going to US schools and speaking the English language (as well as their parents native language in the majority of homes). You can learn a lot from immigrants in the US, particularly with the emphasis they put on family. I think we Americans can afford to learn a lot in that regard.
@ Saxon, E pluribus unum translates to "one out of many". I'm not sure how quoting that helps your argument?
@Mike-416
Here you go Mike. I hope you accept the DOJ stats as REAL and not faux news.
TEX-Couldn't gave said it better.
Why do these incidents always turn into a gun fight between the Dems and Repubs? This guy obviously SNAPPED over something most likely having to do with a wife, girlfriend or ex. Since this article, like so many others that have more holes than a block of swiss cheese, neglected to the absoutely NO DETAILS other than a shooting took place in a spa with 3 men and two women dying, one man being the shooter.
This article, like the millions before it will not solve the gun issue. In the late 1700s America was a brand new nation implementing the first federal republic of its kind. In an attempt to liberate the citizenry while also protecting its sovereignty, the founding fathers determined a well armed citizenry capable of protecting their home and cyoung ountry from invaders (like Britain), while also keeping the government in check, would be a much better option than what other nations in history had provided for. Of course times have changed over the past 220+ years, and our Constitutionbeing the living document that' it is, should change with it.
However, it shouldn't be an all or none solution, but one where deep critical thought, a thorough study of other countries like Canada, Belgium (pro gun) v. England & Somalia (anti gun), etc., and solid ideas of a law that most CITIZENS can agree with to ensure our rights are still protected while limiting the availability of guns to those who pose a danger to society. No law will every stop these murders, as they're are many different tools (knife, car, bomb, facebook) one can use that legislation will never stop or solve. I think all of us are in agreement that not everyone should be armed, but that a gunless society is not the answer either as the black market will never go away.
@wolfmancrack, comment #1.35
I found this quote on another site, from someone using the handle "Nonhyphen American" and thought you might like it. It's a good observation for anyone to consider:
"you're only a "Paranoid Lunatic" until the defecation makes contact with the rotary oscillating device."
Indeed.
The same people on here hating guns in this instance were the same ones cheering on the teenage mom/widow who shot an intruder dead in order to protect herself and her baby boy, a few weeks back!
Ban handguns.
Why?
Yes lets ban handguns, then rifles, then baseball bats, then knives, then any other sharp objects, oh also lets wrap everyone in bubble wrap while were at it!
The voice of stupid...yeah...and "stab 'em instead"...LMAO.
Minimal carjackings and home invasions here in San Antonio, TX because a very high percentage of law abiding citizens are armed themselves. And we also have minimal instances of multiple victims via homicide. Compare our stats to any other city with our size.
TAKENAKA we got to ban idiots & stupid people to use hand guns
Ban murder suicides ....
get the @!$%# out of my country you @!$%#, go join the u.n. or better yet shoot yourself
you're such a redictable dolt.
Wow, that's original...
and the stupid idiots that don't know cowards kill with guns because it's easy people that have hoards of guns are chickens
Might have been a rifle. When the second amendment falls the forth and first will follow in that order. Are you good with that too.
As much as that would seem like a good idea, people are always going to find a way to get weapons, improvised or not.
No.
Handguns are a required weapon to keep killing people whose genes are a threat to the gene pool
I dislike guns but at this point the only people you would be keeping guns away from is the good guys.
ban handguns are you serious u are just the person that likes to ban stuff say if i pick up a big rock and smash someones head with it u would try ban rocks or u know while your at it why not ban knives or swords or anything that u can think of being a weapon im a proud owner of a handgun cause i cant put a rifle in my purse and i had to use it from being raped once its not guns that hurt people its people that hurt people
Calling all trolls....Calling all trolls......controversy, controversy,
Let's blame all the world problems on inanimate objects, to heck with personal responsibility!!!!
Mexico has some of the strictest "gun control" laws in the world and how is that working out for them?
Yes, let's ban handguns. Because all the criminals will walk right down to the local police station and voluntarily turn them in.
People who espouse this viewpoint show no ability to think critically. Banning handguns will only deprive law abiding citizens of their right and ability to defend themselves. Liberal prejudice against guns never shows much reason.
Even if guns were banned, a person can find other ways to harm another person obviously. Another problem is that criminals also would still be able to obtain guns via the underground leaving citizens unarmed and in an unlikely scenario of successful self defense. The issue is social and very complex. No one right answer.
Was this spa offering happy endings with the unhappy ones? I want the happy ending please...
Why does it seem like there is never a gun available to stop someone in this rampage killing? I had to wonder with the Tuscon shooting, there were that many people there and no one had a gun? Or were they too shocked to use it in defense?
If you are afraid of Handguns then roam the Earth unarmed and take your chances. Thank God and our Founders for the second amendment.
Kudos to our Founders and the second amendment
Don't feed this guy.
Such cowards, as he proves, never return to attempt to backup their pathetic position.
realitycheck-3009300 said:
"Let's blame all the world problems on inanimate objects, to heck with personal responsibility!!!!"
Bingo!
You win the NV prize of the day. I'll be right over and rake your leaves.and trim your hedges.
Leiya :)
@ PeteMT
He could also be a troll. Really, gun fanatics are the easiest people to troll on the internet. Just make any kind of pro/ against gun comment and you have a flame war.
I have to agree with everyone who says banning guns is definitly not the answer. im a criminal justice student and i shoot guns myself. The Constitution stands as it stands and no one will ever get around that. The post above is correct, once one amendment falls, they all fall, and this country would never let that happen. People have problems that other people ignor. Its not any sort of weapon that causes any sort of problems in the world; its the people who get their hands on them who dont know any better way to handle their problems. instead of coming on sites and getting angry and suggesting banning guns why dont people reach out to those who are obviously unstable and have problems. know what to look for and how to detect when someone isnt right and HELP. the signs are there... you just need to stop being blind
Ban people, they kill more than guns do. I've also never met a gun that I didn't like.
Takanaka wants your guns so he wont have to worry when he enters your home uninvited. he never mentions why he wants you to be defenceless. its to gain the advantage.
ban the a$sholes !!!!!,not the guns, i never seen a gun go up to someone and shoot his mouth off like some jerks do
Google - Gun Town USA...
Kennensaw, GA (Suburb of Atlanta, GA) passed a law required all households to own and maintain a gun. This was 30+years ago...
Following the enactment, the crime rates in the town fell and have remained well below the US averages. There have only been a handful of gun related deaths in the town. Almost half of these occurred at a school, where Federal & State laws ban ALL guns...
The fact is, very seldom do we hear of somebody getting knifed, baseball batted, or sharped objected. All those methods means possible contact with the other person--it become a liability to the perp. Punks carry guns, men carry boxing gloves.
San Antonio is one of the most dangerous cities in the US. The national median is 39.4 crimes per square mile; in San Antonio, there are 127 crimes per square mile. You are not even the safest place in Texas, let alone the rest of the country. You are almost twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime in San Antonio than the rest of the US... Additionally, this chart shows that only 2% of US cities are more dangerous than San Antonio... So, yeah... cling to your guns.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/san-antonio/crime/
By your logic, country-girl, we should also legalize bazookas, grenades, flame throwers and, so as to deny the concerned citizen the very best possible protection, nuclear weapons. Since people can already kill each other with guns, knives, and even rocks, why prevent ownership of even more deadly weapons?
Yes, you can kill somebody with a rock, a knife, a bat, or any number of common, everyday materials. But you have to get close to your victims to do so, and if you're not stronger or quicker than your victim, you'd better surprise them. Use of a hand gun also allows you to amplify your murderous intent.
Do you really think you'd have five dead people in this Atlanta health spa if the perpetrator did not have a gun?
Could a pudgy, middle-aged professor like Amy Bishop have killed or wounded several of her colleagues with a rock?
Could a deranged student have killed 32 people in and around the Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 2007 using a rock?
These questions reference just a few of the recent spree-killings in this country. In each case, I think that the answer is obvious.
The very prevalence of guns in our society make it almost effortless for almost anyone to obtain one, legally or otherwise.
If we were not so free and and unrestricted in the arms we allow people to own and carry and in the number of guns manufactured and sold, I do not believe there can be any serious doubt that we would have fewer tragedies such as this one.
I concur...private citizens should not be allowed to possess hand guns. I know that this is not going to happen soon, and I realize that it will reduce economic activity, but it seems like the right thing.
Why? Because hand guns are the #1 murder weapon in the US, year after year. The vast majority of hand guns will not be used in a crime, but when a hand gun is used, it is used to harm more than it is used to prevent harm. For example, there are about 300 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the US each year (not even all of those are with a hand gun). But there are about 7,000 murders each year commited with a hand gun.
You do realize that there will always be a #1 murder weapon no matter what is banned, right?
@davey,
Can you provide your home address? Knowing that you're unarmed will make it a LOT easier for thugs to rob and probably kill you in the middle of the night Oh, wait, you are the kind of person who sounds like they will cower in the closet desperately dialing 911 hoping the police will arrive in time. Seriously, sheep like you need to move somewhere else, maybe England where there are strict gun control laws (just ignore the 50% rate of forced home entries).
But will that murder weapon be the #1 weapon year after year, and where the #2 weapon is a distant second? In that case, we would need to consider banning that weapon.
Chuck, I do not look for trouble. For example, I do **not** publish my address on the internet, inviting robbers and killers. DUH! And, if you read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I said ban hand guns. Are rifles and shotguns not good enough to stave off the bad guys? How about a barking dog?
Handguns have advantages over rifles and shotguns in personal defense, namely portability and ease of handling (much easier to point at close-rand targets). Yes, violent crime would probably decrease if we all walked around with rifles slung over our shoulders, but that lacks a little something in convenience versus carrying a handgun.
DAVEY You call 911 and talk real nice to the rapist who just broke into your home and maybe just maybe he won't kill you. It is good that there are people like you who feel private citizens shouldn't be ALLOWED to own handguns, because it is obviouse that the police have special handgun powers, and the world will always need victims. Thank you for being a potential victim.
Exactly why Colt revolvers were called "The Great Equalizer" by many commentators of the day.
While you apply the instance of the firearm, in your diatribe, to only criminals-- think about the victim, or would-be victim. Let's see how your statement holds up, shall we?
"If you're not stronger or quicker than your assailant, you'd better surprise them."
That advice does not hold water and is the worst self-defense advice I can imagine. "Oh, well, he's a lot bigger than you ma'am, better just let him rape you... unless! Maybe you can surprise him? By... uh, I dunno... can you throw pies?"
Firearms are used to prevent crimes in this country a lot more frequently than you may realize. Just recently there was a gentleman in NH who caught a burglar and held him at gunpoint until the police arrived. They tried to charge him with negligence for his use of the firearm, luckily, cooler heads prevailed and all charges were dropped. The burglar, on the other hand, is now in jail. Consider this:
So nearly 1 million crimes are prevented each year by responsible use of firearms. How about that? Remember that gal a month or so ago who shot that home invader and killed him? I suppose you think she ought to have just "surprised" him somehow. (And she was on the phone with 911 when it all happened-- and police did NOT arrive in time, did they?)
As to this:
This is the same logic as this:
Both are illogical extremes and there are abundant problems with both of them, which are fairly obvious to even a casual observer.
Lastly, I saw a few people on this thread calling people with firearms cowards... you do realize that a very large cross-section of American gun owners are... (wait for it)... MILITARY VETERANS. Oh, but sure, they're clearly cowards. Right? Right? That guy down the street and his "arsenal" of guns that stormed the beaches at Peleliu in WW2... The retired detective who fought during the Tet Offensive in 'Nam who keeps a collection of 1911 pistols... The Marine who just got back from his 4th tour of duty in "The Sandbox" and watched half his patrol obliterated by an IED and has an AR-15 he likes to take to the range on Sundays... Those guys? Yeah, total cowards. ::Sarcasm Off:: You know who I think are cowards? People who call the 70-80 million Americans who own firearms "cowards" while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
did they get a refund?
They actually were charged for destruction of hotel property. Towels mostly. Body fluid stains on the floors, etc. If they had been smart; they would have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!
I'm sure a couple of them came and went at the same time...
To Id bang Bristol
Not sure what you meant by your comment - but I think it was along the same line of thought I had, unfortunately. A lot of these so called "establishments" are nothing but sex clubs or business. Nothing more than a "filth" business. If you promote the filth - then expect to attract it also..even in the form of a human behind some lead.
Not a happy ending at Su Jung Health Spa.
Could we get past all of the comments about happy endings and covert sex clubs? Aside from it being completely sexist and racist, it shows a complete lack of respect for the victims of another senseless example of gun violence. Let me explain this to all of you once and for all. Not every East Asian-run spa is one of those places that promise you happy endings. In case you didn't realize it, East Asian medicine has existed for thousands of years and is based on principles of balance of nature and altnenrative methods of healing. Every time I read these, I want to throw something at the screen. To Drainbramaged, you are perfect proof that liberals can make ignorantly racist comments as conservatives can. Here's a newsflash. They wouldn't be in business, if so many of you non-Asian men, particularly white men, didn't have these sick fantasies of Asian women. I can't get through the day without one of you idiots making a comment to me. Sorry, not interested.
Rusty - and the most moral amongst us always seem to be the patrons of these places.
but I bet they ask god for forgiveness every other minute, so all is well.
@ichiou
I feel your anger. Perhaps you can provide the thread with data regarding the number (estimated, since no true figures exist) of AMP's in the USA, along with the percentage of them that are fronts for prostitution compared to the percentage of them that are engaged in medical procedures that are in balance with nature.
Banning handguns just makes them impossible to get legally, it doesn't stop criminals and crazies. Besides I happen to enjoy target shooting.
Ban health spas. Eat fatty foods, smoke, drink. Make the devil work for it. WILLIE NELSON, I rest my case !
Jim while we're at it lets ban kitchen knives, pencils, tire irons, cars (so you won't need that tire iron) and most household cleaners. That'll make us all safe.
Hand guns are not the problem... And, no... you will never be able to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals.
I live in Mexico. Lots of gun control. For some strange reason only the bad guys have guns. Everyone else just gets slaughtered.
Or a criminal in waiting!!!
Reminds me of a movie quote from a Chris Tucker movie: "Guns don't kill people... Stupid motherf*****rs with guns kill people."
I cant believe that there are still people who believe that banning guns will solve the problem of innocent people dying by gunfire. It really is difficult for me to cite an example of logic that is more flawed. And I dont even own a gun. I dont bother debating someone who thinks this way. If you are that numb-minded, nothing I am going to say is going to make sense anyway.
"I cant believe that there are still people who believe that banning guns will solve the problem of innocent people dying by gunfire."
Maybe because other civilized societies that ban guns do not have this problem.
You can kill a person just as easy with your bare hands and one infamous murder was with a ROCK..Go read you bible if you don't believe me. Banning guns or any other weapon would only make it easier for those with murder in their hearts to kill us. The best way to keep from being killed is to make killers think twice about killing and the best way to do that is to allow people to carry weapons until the day there is no more murders.
tekanaka shows up on nearly every single gun related article on msnbc and posts the same thing. Please people don't encourage him/her! For one you are wasting your breath because about a million other people have tried to engage them and its not made a bit of difference and ...two.... they will not carry on a debate with you about it anyway. Its all a ploy to have you begin arguing among yourselves and to get you so riled up it appears as if you are all murderous gun fanatics. Old Tekanaka there has an agenda(probably a paid troll) and all you are doing is helping them.
Other "civilized " countries have more homicides by other means. Knives, clubs, beating, etc. And criminals in those countries have guns. In England, the only ones who have handguns ARE the criminals. The USA ranks 4 in homicides, 42 in gun deaths in the words. The only thing the Brady law did was make it illegal to won an automatic weapon. In the USA since the 1940's, there has never been a crime committed with a LEGALLYowned automatic rifle. Just the other day, a 90 year old man shot a home invader who had a knife. Another lady shot her estranged boyfriend, who had a knife., and a friend with him. The media doesn't like to tell those stories. I witnessed a punk try to rob a convenience store with a machete. A man with a CC put him on the ground till the police came. And so on. Didn't need to shoot him. Most armed thieves are cowards. That's why they use guns and knives. When they no longer have the advantage, they fold like a wet noodle.
Google - Gun Town USA...
Kennensaw, GA (Suburb of Atlanta, GA) passed a law required all households to own and maintain a gun. This was 30+years ago...
Following the enactment, the crime rates in the town fell and have remained well below the US averages. There have only been a handful of gun related deaths in the town. Almost half of these occurred at a school, where Federal & State laws ban ALL guns...
Old man - As compared to the U.S., England has less than 1/3 the murders per capita, and despite your blanket pronouncement, only 8% of the homicides in England and Wales are by a firearm, as compared to 65% in the United States. So if the criminals have hand guns, they are far more restrained in their use there, than in the U.S.A.
Here are the comparative homicide rates for some other civilized countries:
Germany: 1.17 murders per 100,000
Denmark: 1.09 murders per 100,000
Canada: 1.58 murders per 100,000
England: 1.45 murders per 100,000
And the U.S: 4.55 murders per 100,000
Only if you are the stronger individual or can sneak up on them. It is ridiculous to claim that killing with one's bare hands, or with a knife, gun or a rock is just as easy as to simply point a gun, and squeeze the trigger.
I really did not know there were passages in the bible relating to gun use.
I live in Mexico. Lots of gun control. For some strange reason only the bad guys have guns. Everyone else just gets slaughtered. So Yoyo12...what do you propose that "uncivilized" societies do?
Yoyo12, just to humor myself, lets start with the first question. If guns were banned, how would you propose we begin? There are about 300 million guns (legal ones) in the U.S. What would be your plan to eliminate those guns?
Dman - At the rick of being called a racist - I would compare demographics of the aforementioned countries with the US to find your answer.
Viet Sem Fi, demographics is important, but not in the way you might think. Germany, Denmark, Canada, England- all these countries are more homogenous than the United States (England possibly less so than the others). That is to say, culture varies more throughout the US than the aforementioned nations. This combined with our mindset of freedom and entitlement gives us more social friction and more social outliers, thus more murders.
The U.S. is a different sort of beast than any other country on the planet. Other than murder becoming obsolete, the only way our murder rate will match that of these civilized, "European" (I'm including Canada here) nations is create a police state and to enforce rigid social norms. Or not; North Korea had a murder rate of 18.9 per 100,000 when ours was 5.9.
Or Congress could focus on alleviating the socioeconomic situation at the root of many crimes. But that would imply that Congress has the country's best interests at heart.
YOYO12
You are not really going to try that bull@!$%# are you? Try getting the facts before you spout such foolish nonsense. England all but banned firearms and their violent crime rates sky rocketed, Mexico has very restrictive gun laws and a murder rate that equals any year of WW II. There has never been a successful case of a nation or state banning firearms to reduce violent crime-never not one. However the Swiss are basically forced to own firearms and they have an almost non existent homicide rate. The northern New England states have the lowest percentages of violent crime of any geographic region in the U.S. and they have the most liberal firearms laws of any states.
Your arguements are old and flawed and should be retired.
Ahhh, so only the strong should survive. Nice sentiment, if you're not strong enough to overpower a criminal with your bare hands then you should just submit and die.
No thanks. I have no intention of fighting fair.
It's a little difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves when they're laying their naked. Although, it does bring a whole new meaning to 'concealed carry' permit.
dman-Like most liberals your numbers represent what you want them to. You have shown the numbers of murders with firearms/100K not total number of murders per 100K. Since firearms are banned in those nations it is expected that the US, which does not ban firearms, would have more people/100K killed using them.
Nice try but you should keep your sh!t to your dim witted, gun grabbing, Cool-Aid slurping pals. The rest of the world is far too smart for you.
wolfmancrack - Someday I hope to encounter a gun-rights proponent who does not speak, write and read as if they had just placed the barrel of a loaded .44 magnum against their temple and proceeded to squeeze the trigger until they clicked on an empty round.
In my post I specifically said:
That is, comparative homicide rates, not number of murders with firearms/$100k.
Are you always so easily confused?
I won't attempt to estimate the intellect of the rest of the world as it compares to myself. But, I will say that if they put your brain in a humming bird...
...it would still fly backwards.
UNODC Homicide report for 2011:
Legal firearms ownership has been going up and the homicide rate has been going down.
So the Euros if they use a weapon, resort to knives since they can't get guns, but are less likely to use any weapon. And in the Americas a killer is more likely to use a weapon. Maybe we should ban Americans.
Concealed carry. Pull and kill the POS on the spot.
Most Spa members don't walk around with concealed weapons.
bingo
They could hide an AK under the towel.
@craig1955
While I am sure you are correct, people probably are less likely to be carrying at a spa, it may surprise you how close someone might have a firearm regardless of where you are. Quite a few lawfully carrying citizens are more likely to be further away from their cellphone than they are from their firearm.
"Concealed carry. Pull and kill the POS on the spot" Yes yes and YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
not a very happy ending
Today a bullet from another country, where most guns are banned, came flying to the USA, and hit a lady.
Banning guns does NOT work.
i 100% agree, blaming guns for crimes and or murder is like blaming the camera for child pornography.
@mark, that is an excellent assessment of the situation. Blame PC's for cybercrime while we're at it, it's at an all time high.
Banning guns will only serve the criminals. It will not protect the public in no way. Speaking of which, it's about time for carefully screened employees at every place of business to carry a gun & be trained how to react in an emergency.
Cat
I go to some places that most on here would never have the nerves to go, and I never carry and never have for more than 60 years. Was robbed once, gave up the money, and the dude stepped, and still not shot. Of course I'm not a badass, better than you, and I'm always right kind of a feller either. when it comes to trouble, I think one can find just what he is looking for and some he/she wished they never found!!
So charles: You just let that robber go, to rob someone else. I wonder if he killed the next one he mugged?
A coward always takes the safest way out. Not calling ANYONE a coward. Just making an observation.
Last year after a national election in Thailand. A man shot a pistol into the air to celebrate in BKK. Several miles away the bullet went through a roof and KILLED a sleeping child...
The shooter was identified as having a unregistered weapon (5+years) and convicted of killing the child (life in jail)...
BTY - In Thailand, 5x the crime rate of the USA using weapons. Owning a legal gun is almost impossible, just the possession of a illegal gun will get you; 5+years or life, if it is a military style weapon.
Yet the criminals seem to always be in possesion of semi-auto pistols and M-16s they have bought/stolen from the Thai Military...
Those damn Canadians!
America is not Thailand...
Also to Arizona Tumble - that's some Republican press conference type reasoning there. "I'm not saying what I said".
@Capt Tripps
And America is not "those other countries that dont have these issues".
A firearm ban is not feasible (not that I would support one even if it was). Our Constitution prevents it, and it would be nearly impossible to actually confiscate the millions of firearms that are currently legally owned, let alone the huge issue we would have with smuggling through Mexico. If you think drug and gang violence is bad now, imagine what it would be like if we drastically reduced the number of lawfully owned guns.
Whenever there is a story of this kind, there is always someone who has to state 'ban handguns'. I think they come in these comment pages just to get a rise from all who read these articles.
The article states it is a health spa. Is this a polite way to say massage parlor with all that implies?
I agree with maniac you can only keep guns out of the hands of honest and open citizens. But often the guns are stole from honest and open citizens. We get careless with our guns . Hide and lock them up when not being used for sport or hunting.
Grannie, a "health Spa" isn't necessarily a massage parlor. It could be a day spa where men and women go to have massages, their hair and nails and everything done. They can be very enjoyable. But going around wrapped in a towel kind of limits you in carrying a weapon. Lack of pockets.
I do hope one of the dead is the shooter. I do Understand this is a mental illness of some sort, making people do things like this to perfect strangers, but I cannot figure out the why of it.
Ban handguns? Really. I don't think so. Murder is "banned" and I don't see that stopping anybody. You can't take away something that our country already widely distributes.
@Lulu, you're right. Murder is a capital crime in many states, and while many violent crimes are down, murder isn't one of them.
Life sentences & even the death penalty that takes 20+ years to carry out is not enough deterrence against murder. I don't feel that a ban on handguns will help, it'll only cause more murders, because us law abiding citizens won't be able to defend ourselves.
Weapons to kill can be made out of many things. Guns are only one of them.
Cat
cat,
you are correct. the murder rate has not changed in over 30 years. That includes during the Brady bill time frame.
While I don't believe that Capital punishment is a deterrent against crime, it would certainly stop THAT person from ever killing again.
We need to revamp the laws regarding capital punishment and the appeals system. When some scum rapes and murders your 4yr old, or maybe your sister, or your wife, then it's a slam dunk to death row, and execution to be served within a year.
When a gang banger Kills an innocent kid in the street, or kills a cop chasing him, slap him onto the gurney and say goodbye.
Now I'm not saying ALL prisoners convicted of murder should be executed. I understand that sometimes it's on very circumstantial evidence that they are in prison to start with. No smoking gun. But I'm talking about the Factual without a doubt guilty ones.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Ban Health spas. Being healthy does you no good if you're dead.
Ban handguns? bwah hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, while your at it ban everything else that can kill you dipstick.., ban the bathtub and shower and water, a knife, fork, and spoon, second story windows, tire irons, clothes irons, sunglasses, pens and pencils, sissors, food because you may choke on it, cars trucks and airplanes, bricks, rocks, and sticks, cigarettes, booze, your spouse, dogs and cats, gas and all chemicals, bad air, heart attacks and strokes, sharks, and lions tigers and bear oh my...get real already
Banning ANYTHING is ridiculous. As an ER doc, I've seen people murdered with plastic forks to the jugular. I've seen people murdered using bare hands. Try banning that! In fact, more people in the U.S. and Canada are murdered through non-weapon based physical violence than all other non-accidental causes combined. Even for suicide, weapons-based is less than 1/6 of all lives taken.
I agree.....100% !!!!!
Not exactly a fair comparison, given the quantities of victims. A better argument is, the only people that would obey the law are the ones that wouldn't commit a crime so it does no good to ban guns.
You have a very good point. Yes, mass murder-suicides are almost always the result of firearms. Not just handguns. Granted, I still don't believe a ban on guns is the right approach. Small firearms HAVE their place. Outside of military and law enforcement use, automatics and long-guns are for sport and hunting, nuff said. But I defend every American's right to defend themselves with a handgun.
The REAL issue here isn't possession - it's mental fitness. And that is an entirely whole other (and VERY complex) kettle of fish.
Why do people feel the need to kill others when they take their own life? Just kill yourself, and leave others out of it.
I've wondered about that myself. Never have I understood why anyone has to take others down prior to suicide. The only time that I remotely agreed with it was years ago, at the workplace, there were 4 men always picking on this one handicapped man, for years.
Management refused to do anything, even after the family of the man reported it multiple times. They liked to get him in the bathroom & rough him up, sometimes even taking his money. Well, one day, this man got fed up with it. He headed towards the bathroom at the usual time to wash up for break, waited until all 4 were in there, and opened fire, killing all, then himself.
The thing was, he didn't have to take his life, they were all armed. He must have really surprised them, for not one of the 4 had time to react, although 2 had their hands in their pockets around their guns.
This is why there should be a national law, not against guns, but bullying others in the workplace. It should be in the OSHA rules & enforced with mandatory prison time. How many times right here on the Vine has this been reported & we commented? At least once, recently. 3 bullies killed, & the victim took his life.
That would be one solution to reduce this kind of activity. I'm sure there are other solutions, but simply taking away guns is not the answer.
Cat
What is wrong with you fool ?? Ban handguns ?? First thing someone spits out of their mouth when a gun is involved. Smart people own guns and any idiot on the street can get one......but it's people like this fool with "mental problems" that had one and chose to do the unthinkable.
Guns in the urban environment are for cowards and the criminals, excluding law enforcement and the military and hunters with guns specific for that purpose.
Guns is a real problem in the USA I live in AZ and rednecks in white ford F150s are proof of that,
they drive like juvenile bully's and I'm sure most of them own guns.
Why don't you move to New York City...very few rednecks and white F150's there.
Wow I have a white Ford F150. I live in Arizona. I have and possess several firearms that I own legally.
I do not drive or act like a juvenile bully.
I have worked in Criminal justice and law enforcement for years and I can tell you if you live in or around Tucson you better be packing because if you expect TPD or The Pima County Sheriff's Dept to protect, then you invest in a good life insurance policy.
And besides maybe you get "bullied" because you stereo type people the way you did me.
I'm sure your Prius rules with its "Free Baja Arizona" bumper sticker.
Now how does it feel to be stereotyped?
You have no idea what you are even talking about. The country is not AZ, and AZ is not the country. As far as only cowards use guns, when was the last time someone attempted to kill you and you were unarmed? You say NEVER! Again, You have NO idea what you are talking about!
You said it !!!!! I agree 100%. I live among those fools she speaking of in Washington State, I have to say that is more of a reason for me to be a responsible handgun and rifle owner. I'm a single white female 45.
I live in Arizona. I have a white f350. It's a bigger truck, so I need more guns.
Your comment about guessing about "most of them have guns", means it's working. The criminals don't know who is armed.
rushless
"Guns in the urban environment are for cowards and the criminals, excluding law enforcement and the military and hunters with guns specific for that purpose.
Guns is a real problem in the USA I live in AZ and rednecks in white ford F150s are proof of that,
they drive like juvenile bully's and I'm sure most of them own guns."
RICHARD!!!!!!!!!!!
Ban white Ford F150s
takenaka
I would point out that murder is already banned. That ban seems not to have had the desired effect. How would a ban on handguns have had any different outcome?
I have owned handguns for over forty years. I have never shot anything but a paper target. I have no desire to change that, but I earned the expert pistol badge 13 times in the Marine Corps, so given the necessary circumstances, I could.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law. Therefore, outlawing my handguns would only effect me, and millions of other law-abiding gun owners, and our ability to defend ourselves, which we need to be able to do to do; waiting for the police, as news story after news story affirms, does not work.
Occasionally, I shoot cans and bottles too.
Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.
Why should your desire to become a victim trump my RIGHT to protect myself?
It doesn't. Thank them intelligent forefathers for placing that in our Constitution. Has anyone else noticed however that the intelligence factor of our POTUS and Congress has exponentially declined year after year since then.
Jeff-That is AWESOME. I hope you don't mind but I am going to be using that.
Why do stories like this one make national news and honor killings by American Muslims do not?
Because Muslim good, hand gun bad.
Dang got two groups with that one
How did this news exactly inspired you with this comment? is all what thinking is how to attack Muslims and that it? GET A LIFE and stop being such a hatred person!!!!
"ban handguns" WTF ! JUST BAN A$$HOLES INSTEAD !
I'm starting to think the gun grabbers are putting something in the water to make the small percentage of crazies go overboard and start shooting, just so they have the "hard data" to make a run for a permanent ban on ALL guns. It seems like every week there's a new story about mass murder/suicide shootings.
Bless the poor souls who were on the receiving end of this prime example of a sub-standard gene pool reject.
Thank you sir; 5 dead people and the second post is about banning handguns. WTF is your deal boy.
You think just maybe the shootings are because of ridiculously easy firearm access and the "gun grabbers" might be suggesting a reasonable solution???
William
I feel this silly to ask because it always turns into a give an inch grab a mile but...... Give us a reasonable solution.... Something you can live with, within the constitution, and is NOT so limiting it may as well be a complete ban. NYC allows gun ownership but is so restrictive it is actually a ban unless you pay someone off.
You forgot to add.......That is NOT already covered by an existing law and could actually be enforced.
Jnikolai
You forgot to add.......That is NOT already covered by an existing law and could actually be enforced.
That was coming if they chose to respond. There are a few things I could even agree to that are not mandatory to simply own a gun currently. Lets see what they come up with that they are able to stick with.
William-"ridiculously easy firearm access" Seriously as in background checks on the sate and federal level, states that violate the constitution by restricting access to firearms, and gun grabbing lunatics that want to violate my GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Yeah anti-gun nut!!!!
God given right , yeah in your vacuum that separates your ears