US school shooting: Teacher killed, two students wounded

[F430murci]

An 11-year-old boy was arrested after bringing 400 rounds of ammunition, several knives and a handgun to school on Wednesday, police said.

Frontier Middle School, in Vancouver, Wash., was locked down for about two hours after ammunition was found at around 9:20 a.m. local time (12:20 p.m. ET).

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/24/21109603-boy-11-brought-400-rounds-of-ammo-handgun-knives-to-school-cops?lite

[FiftyTwo]

Many countries in the world have liberal gun ownership laws.

Only in America do you get these spree killings (often by children).

The problem is not availability of guns in America.

The problem is America. America grows spree and serial killers like other countries grow potatoes.

I have no idea why America is different, but it just is.

[boomerangutang]

I grew up in the US, and remember countless movies where guns were used. The good guys always made their shots hit their targets, and the bad guys missed about 99% of the time. One thing that hit home was, guns were always aimed for kill shots, never to maim. In case gun-huggers haven't figured it out, a shot to the leg or arm can be awfully painful and be debilitating for months. In other words, if you insist on shooting someone, why is it always shoot-to-kill? It would be like; every bar-room brawl, the winner had to pummel the loser until death.

Now, we've got generations of younger kids, mostly boys, staring at shoot-em-up computer screen games. There's gotta be psychological ramifications of hundreds of hours of pseudo killing people with guns.

Who would have thought that teaching would become such a dangerous profession

Teaching is dangerous in southern Thailand also - though for different reasons than crazed kids with guns. In S.Thailand, it's angry Muslim men with guns. Either way, they always shoot to kill, never shoot to maim.

[Ulysses G.]

One thing that hit home was, guns were always aimed for kill shots, never to maim. In case gun-huggers haven't figured it out, a shot to the leg or arm can be awfully painful and be debilitating for months. In other words, if you insist on shooting someone, why is it always shoot-to-kill?

Because it is very difficult for even an expert to hit someone with a handgun at all - never mind trying to only disable someone who is trying to kill you. Only an idiot would try to shoot a dangerous criminal in his leg.

[F430murci]

One thing that hit home was, guns were always aimed for kill shots, never to maim. In case gun-huggers haven't figured it out, a shot to the leg or arm can be awfully painful and be debilitating for months. In other words, if you insist on shooting someone, why is it always shoot-to-kill?

Because it is very difficult for even an expert to hit someone with a handgun at all - never mind trying to only disable someone who is trying to kill you. Only an idiot would try to shoot a dangerous criminal in his leg.

Shoot to thrill, play to kill, I got my gun at the ready gonna fire at will, Yeah!

[F430murci]

Appears to be another Navy base incident.

-----

Four people shot on the Millington Navy Base in Tennessee, north of Memphis.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/4-shot-millington-tenn-navy-base-article-1.1495522

[boomerangutang]

One thing that hit home was, guns were always aimed for kill shots, never to maim. In case gun-huggers haven't figured it out, a shot to the leg or arm can be awfully painful and be debilitating for months. In other words, if you insist on shooting someone, why is it always shoot-to-kill?

Because it is very difficult for even an expert to hit someone with a handgun at all - never mind trying to only disable someone who is trying to kill you. Only an idiot would try to shoot a dangerous criminal in his leg.

You're only describing a portion, perhaps less than half, of gunshot deaths. First off you mention handguns, but handguns are just a portion of shooting incidents. Then you mention 'Someone who is trying to kill you.' Again, that is just a portion of incidents. Indeed, the OP is about killing a man who is asking for the gun.

So, my premise still stands: 'Why are gun carriers always going for the fatal shot, when more often than not, a non-fatal (maiming) shot would more than suffice?' One answer: gun carriers/owners have bloodlust, and get high from knowing that, with a tiny flick of the tip of their index finger, they can terminate a person's life. A schoolyard bully beats people up and leaves them with bruises and a bruised ego. A gun carrier just blows them away in a second, with a shot to the heart or head. That's the primary reason I've always disliked people who think their guns make them powerful.

[Ulysses G.]

Your whole premise is silly. Most defensive shootings are by policemen using handguns and they have no idea of what harm the criminals intend to do to them. THAT is why they are trained to shoot to kill.

If your comments are directed at criminals using guns, I don't think that they are listening.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[itsrebel]

Your whole premise is silly. Most defensive shootings are by policemen using handguns and they have no idea of what harm the criminals intend to do to them. THAT is why they are trained to shoot to kill.

If your comments are directed at criminals using guns, I don't think that they are listening.

Okay. I don't know much about this, but did the cop have to kill the 13 yo with the replica. I know, he didn't know it was a replica. But, to shoot to kill a child shouldn't be the first instinct, at least IMO

[Ulysses G.]

I don't like that it happened, but a child just shot a teacher and two students somewhere else. The police have to protect themselves.

[boomerangutang]

Then there's the little boy who shot and killed his dad. They were in the front seat of a p.u. truck, kid plays with a handgun on the seat, gun goes off, daddy's dead. Who to feel worse for? The man who died, or the kid who will grow up knowing he shot his own father?

America is stuffed to the gills with guns. Bad things happen every day, because of Americans' gun mania. It's reinforced by movies, and other media. Perhaps the Middle East is worse, but that's like saying a decaying horse smells worse than a decaying pig because a horse is bigger.

[NeverSure]

What are the UK citizens going to do in 20 years after more and more Middle Easterners move in, and continue to outbreed them 6:1, and the PC politicians continue to defend them against the natives? What are the natives' children going to do?

The UK is already lost to the PC crowd and the immigration of a different culture.

Here's a story in Whitechapel where 5 men, believed to be from Bengali, took a bottle to the face of a visiting American and not only badly beat him otherwise, but scarred him for life. I suspect that during the beating he didn't know if he was going to live. Link

This is only going to get worse, not better, and the native Brits have no way to defend themselves or their families.

Be careful what you wish for.

Americans have their bases covered, and are willing to accept a few deaths (as a percentage of population) in exchange for freedom to handle their own affairs.

Apparently ? Brits and Aussies believe their police will be all they need to defend them. Americans don't believe that and don't trust their government. Right now, today, the police and politicians in the UK and Australia aren't defending the natives. They are actually defending the immigrants with PC hate speech rules, etc.

Today, the governments in the UK and Australia are proving they can't be trusted to defend their citizens.

Get back to me in 20 years when your children or grandchildren are overwhelmed by Middle Easterners and PC politicians. Maybe you'll decide that Americans were right.

Edited October 25, 2013 by NeverSure

[sustento]

What are the UK citizens going to do in 20 years after more and more Middle Easterners move in, and continue to outbreed them 6:1, and the PC politicians continue to defend them against the natives? What are the natives' children going to do?

The UK is already lost to the PC crowd and the immigration of a different culture.

Here's a story in Whitechapel where 5 men, believed to be from Bengali, took a bottle to the face of a visiting American and not only badly beat him otherwise, but scarred him for life. I suspect that during the beating he didn't know if he was going to live. Link

This is only going to get worse, not better, and the native Brits have no way to defend themselves or their families.

Be careful what you wish for.

Americans have their bases covered, and are willing to accept a few deaths (as a percentage of population) in exchange for freedom to handle their own affairs.

Apparently ? Brits and Aussies believe their police will be all they need to defend them. Americans don't believe that and don't trust their government. Right now, today, the police and politicians in the UK and Australia aren't defending the natives. They are actually defending the immigrants with PC hate speech rules, etc.

Today, the governments in the UK and Australia are proving they can't be trusted to defend their citizens.

Get back to me in 20 years when your children or grandchildren are overwhelmed by Middle Easterners and PC politicians. Maybe you'll decide that Americans were right.

What's this got to do with the death by shooting of a teacher in the USA? BTW Bengal isn't in the 'Middle East' it's in the Indian sub-continent.

Edited October 25, 2013 by sustento

[NeverSure]

One thing that hit home was, guns were always aimed for kill shots, never to maim. In case gun-huggers haven't figured it out, a shot to the leg or arm can be awfully painful and be debilitating for months. In other words, if you insist on shooting someone, why is it always shoot-to-kill?

Because it is very difficult for even an expert to hit someone with a handgun at all - never mind trying to only disable someone who is trying to kill you. Only an idiot would try to shoot a dangerous criminal in his leg.

You're only describing a portion, perhaps less than half, of gunshot deaths. First off you mention handguns, but handguns are just a portion of shooting incidents. Then you mention 'Someone who is trying to kill you.' Again, that is just a portion of incidents. Indeed, the OP is about killing a man who is asking for the gun.

So, my premise still stands: 'Why are gun carriers always going for the fatal shot, when more often than not, a non-fatal (maiming) shot would more than suffice?' One answer: gun carriers/owners have bloodlust, and get high from knowing that, with a tiny flick of the tip of their index finger, they can terminate a person's life. A schoolyard bully beats people up and leaves them with bruises and a bruised ego. A gun carrier just blows them away in a second, with a shot to the heart or head. That's the primary reason I've always disliked people who think their guns make them powerful.

This simply shows a lack of knowledge about defensive handgun use.

In the OP, the police were faced with what they thought was an AK. They ordered the guy to drop it and instead he turned toward them with the gun. As far as they knew, they were seconds from dying and all they probably had were handguns. Handguns against an AK?

They believed they had to stop the guy, and right now. They are trained to shoot at the largest target to avoid missing, and keep shooting until that threat is stopped. The largest target is the torso which unfortunately also has the most vital organs and arteries.

If they simply wanted to execute him, and if it was that easy to hit a moving target with a handgun, they'd shoot him between the eyes, assuring his instant death. But that isn't the goal nor is it effective because they'd probably miss.

A person might well be able to still shoot an AK if hit in the leg or arm even if the police could actually shoot that accurately. The goal of the officers at that moment is to stop the guy to save their lives and perhaps the lives of others around if they have a mass killer on their hands.

They did the right thing even though it is so sad. They did what they thought they needed to do which was to stop this guy. The only sure way to do that is to keep putting bullets into the torso until he's down and out.

Yes it's sad and yes I feel bad for everyone involved, but asking for a wounding shot with a handgun on a moving target is downright silly and probably impossible.

[NeverSure]

What are the UK citizens going to do in 20 years after more and more Middle Easterners move in, and continue to outbreed them 6:1, and the PC politicians continue to defend them against the natives? What are the natives' children going to do?

The UK is already lost to the PC crowd and the immigration of a different culture.

Here's a story in Whitechapel where 5 men, believed to be from Bengali, took a bottle to the face of a visiting American and not only badly beat him otherwise, but scarred him for life. I suspect that during the beating he didn't know if he was going to live. Link

This is only going to get worse, not better, and the native Brits have no way to defend themselves or their families.

Be careful what you wish for.

Americans have their bases covered, and are willing to accept a few deaths (as a percentage of population) in exchange for freedom to handle their own affairs.

Apparently ? Brits and Aussies believe their police will be all they need to defend them. Americans don't believe that and don't trust their government. Right now, today, the police and politicians in the UK and Australia aren't defending the natives. They are actually defending the immigrants with PC hate speech rules, etc.

Today, the governments in the UK and Australia are proving they can't be trusted to defend their citizens.

Get back to me in 20 years when your children or grandchildren are overwhelmed by Middle Easterners and PC politicians. Maybe you'll decide that Americans were right.

What's this got to do with the death by shooting of a teacher in the USA? BTW Bengal isn't in the 'Middle East' it's in the Indian sub-continent.

And, what is the primary religion of 88% of the inhabitants of Bengal?

"Large numbers of Bengalis have settled in Britain, mainly living in the East boroughs of London, numbering from around 300,000." Link.

It has everything to do with the OP if we're going to make it about guns and self defense. The US also has a similar number of Bengalis, but I'm not afraid of them in the US. That's the point.

Edited October 25, 2013 by NeverSure

[sustento]

What are the UK citizens going to do in 20 years after more and more Middle Easterners move in, and continue to outbreed them 6:1, and the PC politicians continue to defend them against the natives? What are the natives' children going to do?

The UK is already lost to the PC crowd and the immigration of a different culture.

Here's a story in Whitechapel where 5 men, believed to be from Bengali, took a bottle to the face of a visiting American and not only badly beat him otherwise, but scarred him for life. I suspect that during the beating he didn't know if he was going to live. Link

This is only going to get worse, not better, and the native Brits have no way to defend themselves or their families.

Be careful what you wish for.

Americans have their bases covered, and are willing to accept a few deaths (as a percentage of population) in exchange for freedom to handle their own affairs.

Apparently ? Brits and Aussies believe their police will be all they need to defend them. Americans don't believe that and don't trust their government. Right now, today, the police and politicians in the UK and Australia aren't defending the natives. They are actually defending the immigrants with PC hate speech rules, etc.

Today, the governments in the UK and Australia are proving they can't be trusted to defend their citizens.

Get back to me in 20 years when your children or grandchildren are overwhelmed by Middle Easterners and PC politicians. Maybe you'll decide that Americans were right.

What's this got to do with the death by shooting of a teacher in the USA? BTW Bengal isn't in the 'Middle East' it's in the Indian sub-continent.

And, what is the primary religion of 88% of the inhabitants of Bengal?

"Large numbers of Bengalis have settled in Britain, mainly living in the East boroughs of London, numbering from around 300,000." Link.

It has everything to do with the OP if we're going to make it about guns and self defense. The US also has a similar number of Bengalis, but I'm not afraid of them in the US. That's the point.

What does the religion of the inhabitants of Bengal have to do with the shooting of a teacher in Nevada? Were any Bengalis involved in the shooting?

Edited October 25, 2013 by sustento

[NeverSure]

What are the UK citizens going to do in 20 years after more and more Middle Easterners move in, and continue to outbreed them 6:1, and the PC politicians continue to defend them against the natives? What are the natives' children going to do?

The UK is already lost to the PC crowd and the immigration of a different culture.

Here's a story in Whitechapel where 5 men, believed to be from Bengali, took a bottle to the face of a visiting American and not only badly beat him otherwise, but scarred him for life. I suspect that during the beating he didn't know if he was going to live. Link

This is only going to get worse, not better, and the native Brits have no way to defend themselves or their families.

Be careful what you wish for.

Americans have their bases covered, and are willing to accept a few deaths (as a percentage of population) in exchange for freedom to handle their own affairs.

Apparently ? Brits and Aussies believe their police will be all they need to defend them. Americans don't believe that and don't trust their government. Right now, today, the police and politicians in the UK and Australia aren't defending the natives. They are actually defending the immigrants with PC hate speech rules, etc.

Today, the governments in the UK and Australia are proving they can't be trusted to defend their citizens.

Get back to me in 20 years when your children or grandchildren are overwhelmed by Middle Easterners and PC politicians. Maybe you'll decide that Americans were right.

What's this got to do with the death by shooting of a teacher in the USA? BTW Bengal isn't in the 'Middle East' it's in the Indian sub-continent.

And, what is the primary religion of 88% of the inhabitants of Bengal?

"Large numbers of Bengalis have settled in Britain, mainly living in the East boroughs of London, numbering from around 300,000." Link.

It has everything to do with the OP if we're going to make it about guns and self defense. The US also has a similar number of Bengalis, but I'm not afraid of them in the US. That's the point.

What does the religion of the inhabitants of Bengal have to do with the shooting of a teacher in Nevada? Were any Bengalis involved in the shooting?

It has everything to do with why Americans own guns and what can happen to you if you don't have something to defend yourself with.

This thread has turned into a discussion about why Americans "think" they need to own guns. I'm defending it and pointing out what can and will happen to people who don't have one.

People from other countries are criticizing Americans for owning guns. I'm pointing out what will happen to the citizens of countries who don't.

We have different viewpoints and different cultures and they are being compared most openly buy people who aren't Americans.

[Publicus]

Honestly, all the so called experts have been tackling this problem for a long time. No one has found the solution yet. As someone else mentioned they need to go in a different direction and not just keep writings laws to ban things. A problem world wide is the growth of gangs and getting mor violent. Even Thailand has them. I think it should start at an early age. Many schools have started anti bulling and anti gang campaigns. But I also think there needs to be more social behaviour training kids are not getting at home. JMHO.

That's it? You just shrug your shoulders and wait for the next bout of slaughter?

Until enough Americans think that the situation is beyond acceptable, these type of shootings will probably happen about once every 6 weeks on average.

Dozens of scientific public opinion surveys have shown for many years the vast majority of Americans support lighter gun access and ownership laws.

It's not that serious improvements to gun ownership and possession issues don't have vast and deep public support. Public support is broad, deep, long existing.

The US body politic has been thwarted and frustrated for decades by the leadership of the NRA, and a tiny minority of noisy and moneyed gun fanatics who intimidate politicians in Washington. They repeatedly post to the recurring threads on this terrible topic. Too many spineless politicians continue to kowtow to them.

It's the same old story, seemingly without end.

The same old story will end one day - no one can say when however.

Tragically, it appears it will not end anytime soon.

[sustento]

It has everything to do with why Americans own guns and what can happen to you if you don't have something to defend yourself with.

This thread has turned into a discussion about why Americans "think" they need to own guns. I'm defending it and pointing out what can and will happen to people who don't have one.

People from other countries are criticizing Americans for owning guns. I'm pointing out what will happen to the citizens of countries who don't.

We have different viewpoints and different cultures and they are being compared most openly buy people who aren't Americans.

I understand that but the question I asked further up the thread was could anyone suggest a way to decrease the number of school shootings that seem to occur with depressing regularity in the USA? Someone did suggest making parents legally liable for their offspring's actions with guns which seemed to me to be a reasonable answer. Apart from that everyone else seems to have avoided my question and mooched off.

[NeverSure]

It has everything to do with why Americans own guns and what can happen to you if you don't have something to defend yourself with.

This thread has turned into a discussion about why Americans "think" they need to own guns. I'm defending it and pointing out what can and will happen to people who don't have one.

People from other countries are criticizing Americans for owning guns. I'm pointing out what will happen to the citizens of countries who don't.

We have different viewpoints and different cultures and they are being compared most openly buy people who aren't Americans.

I understand that but the question I asked further up the thread was could anyone suggest a way to decrease the number of school shootings that seem to occur with depressing regularity in the USA? Someone did suggest making parents legally liable for their offspring's actions with guns which seemed to me to be a reasonable answer. Apart from that everyone else seems to have avoided my question and mooched off.

Fair question. Sorry I missed it, but I really tried to just stay out of this thread, expecting it to turn into America bashing.

When my kids were young I kept my guns locked in a gun safe except for the one I was wearing concealed and I had control of it. Of course the safe also deters thieves.

The dilemma is: How do you keep a gun handy for home defense, but keep it out of reach of a teenager? By far the best gun for home defense is a short barreled shotgun with 00 buckshot, designed to kill a deer or other wild game. By far the worst is a handgun. A handgun has little power by comparison, and is far harder to aim especially in low light with adrenaline flowing.

But still, I kept my guns locked in a safe except for the one I was wearing, and at bedtime I put it under my pillow. That was the compromise for having kids. I too would hold parents responsible for letting a kid get his hands on a gun.

But do you realize we are WAY off topic? The kid who was killed was carrying a toy gun. It was a very good replica of an AK, but with the federally required fluorescent orange tip somehow painted over. I still have a problem with that. If I had an AK which I don't because I think they are lousy guns, I could paint the end of the barrel and then what? Everyone would think it's a toy?????????

A kid had a realistic toy AK which had the tip painted black, the police thought it was real, when ordered to drop the gun the kid instead turned it toward the police and he's dead.

I would outlaw those toys if they look like real guns. Toy guns that shoot those plastic pellets that kids use for war games don't need to look real, and outlawing them wouldn't violate anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. The law could simply say that they have to be clear plastic, and not shaped like any recognizable real gun, and the kids could still play if the parents approve. (I don't.)

Most of these school shootings seem to be the result of a kid using his parents' gun. I would put the full burden on the parents and they'd spend some time in prison. I don't know anyone who owns guns who thinks that kids should have unsupervised access to them, and I have no problem punishing someone who allows it.

I still think it's possible that this kid wanted to commit "suicide by cop." Otherwise I can't figure out why the barrel tip was black, why he was carrying it that way, and why when ordered to drop it he instead turned it right toward the police. Just maybe?

[sustento]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

[Publicus]

The Sandy Hook school shooter killed his mother, the only parent in the home.

A kid that age and that deranged is gonna get his hands on a firearm(s) if he wants to.

One aspect of this that deserves a lot more scientific investigation is why males but not females do the mass shootings. Beyond the standard biophysical delineations between the genders. The sociopathy and as well as the psychopathy of it.

[boomerangutang]

In Burmese and Thai border towns, and probably many other places, toy guns can be readily bought (usually they're all black) which look near exactly like the real things. Asians wouldn't add a painted tip on the toy gun, any more than they would put on seatbelts. But perhaps Asians have a bit more sense than Americans, because we hear fewer stories about deranged gun killings in Asia.

[Credo]

In Burmese and Thai border towns, and probably many other places, toy guns can be readily bought (usually they're all black) which look near exactly like the real things. Asians wouldn't add a painted tip on the toy gun, any more than they would put on seatbelts. But perhaps Asians have a bit more sense than Americans, because we hear fewer stories about deranged gun killings in Asia.

It's a nice try, but hearing fewer stories about deranged gun killings in Asia, especially along the Thai-Burmese border probably has more to do with the media and the value of human life, than anything else.

[NeverSure]

The Sandy Hook school shooter killed his mother, the only parent in the home.

A kid that age and that deranged is gonna get his hands on a firearm(s) if he wants to.

One aspect of this that deserves a lot more scientific investigation is why males but not females do the mass shootings. Beyond the standard biophysical delineations between the genders. The sociopathy and as well as the psychopathy of it.

If the Sandy Hook shooter's parents had the guns locked in a safe or on their person, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Any time you're ready, you can stop quoting spurious polls and such. The REAL poll is the 100 million Americans who own 300 million guns. They voted with their pocketbooks.

More than 1/2 of Americans live in a house with a gun. If one person in the house owns a gun, but the other 3 people including children don't, and you still have 100 million who do own a gun, then the vast majority of eligible citizens and a majority of homes own guns. Eligible means of age, not having a criminal background, etc.

Owning guns in America is a Constitutional right unaffected by polls anyway. It's also unaffected by anyone's personal opinion(s).

I support punishment for parents who allow children to have access to guns. I support outlawing realistic toy guns which I don't think the Constitution addresses.

But until you get the 2nd Amendment repealed, you are blowing smoke.

[F430murci]

Haha, yeah, great idea! The problem here is that the one thinking they need to take a gun to work are the ones that are mentally deranged. I personally would just fire anyone from my firm that exercised such right. I wouldd just tell them their looks are repulsive or we are enforcing the minimum teeth requirement. That's not protected. Thank god for employment at will and my right to discriminate against nutters who make others feel uncomfortable.

-----

Bring your kid to work? Sure. Bring your dog to work? No problem. Bring your gun to work? In many states, packing heat on the job is a legally protected right.

http://m.nbcnews.com/business/guns-workplace-safety-issue-or-nightmare-8C11457700

[F430murci]

Every day, innocents life's are being altered due to nutters hiding behind second amendment. I think Brad Pitt summed it up quiet nicely in Seven.

I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading Guns and Ammo, masturbating in your own feces. Do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how <deleted> crazy I really am!"? Yeah, do you guys do that?

-----

1 Killed, 5 Injured in Deadly New Haven Club

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/1-Killed-5-Injured-in-New-Haven-Club-Shooting-229371141.html

-----

Oh, that's right. The insane just say we need more guns and everyone in club needed to be packing heat . . .

[yingyo]

Happens in every country!

[boomerangutang]

I went to record some music in a studio, and the guy (a stranger) sitting next to me smiled and told me he was 'packing.' It didn't make the music session go any smoother.

Interesting point in the above-post about employees packing guns to work. If I was a boss, I wouldn't allow it (except a security guard) . Though I wouldn't be surprised if some states would allow a lawsuit against a boss who responded that way.

There's serious talk in the US of designating armed guards be posted at schools. I'm 100% against that. Guards are people, and therefore subject to similar screw-ups that all people are prone to. Plus, (maybe this sounds Middle Eastern) but grown men hanging out all day at schools with 1,000+ pretty young girls, is a recipe for a problem. I could elaborate, but I think you could also. Gun lovers might tell you, "Those security guards would be professionals, and would be cognizant of legal consequences if they did anything improper" My response; 'Yea right, some 18 year old cutie gets a crush on the big man who's always standing by himself at the end of the hallway, with a bulging gun his holster (both parties have hormones raging) ..... all sorts of things can happen, particularly if the girl has a jealous boyfriend.' Alternatively, boys are known to taunt, and that could also cause problems. Gun toting men don't only go bezerk in post offices.

Edited October 26, 2013 by boomerangutang

[beechguy]

Every day, innocents life's are being altered due to nutters hiding behind second amendment. I think Brad Pitt summed it up quiet nicely in Seven.

I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading Guns and Ammo, masturbating in your own feces. Do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fuc_king crazy I really am!"? Yeah, do you guys do that?

-----

1 Killed, 5 Injured in Deadly New Haven Club

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/1-Killed-5-Injured-in-New-Haven-Club-Shooting-229371141.html

-----

Oh, that's right. The insane just say we need more guns and everyone in club needed to be packing heat . . .

I wonder how many of those packing, were NRA members? Or how many of those weapons were legally owned?