The death toll is even higher, IMO. Children are committing suicide after shootings happen in their schools. Parents of children killed in school shootings are committing suicide. People who survive mass shootings commit suicide. The unimaginable horror they go through lives with them every day.
Forgive me for being so anguished here. I know I'm preaching to the choir. And yes, Alan. Talking should have already been done and action should be in place.
In the name of God, what is it with a country that they can just dismiss these deaths as just so much collateral damage?
"It" is our business model. "It" is the replacement of government of the people, for the people, by the people with government of the people, by the lobbyists, for the corporations.
Capitalism's moral imperative is "Profit to the Stockholder!" So long as corporate earnings can safely and comfortably absorb the damages courts award in negligent death lawsuits -- because while gun violence takes the cake, it's far from the only game in town -- it will ever be thus.
Mortality from dangerous and poisonous toys, from defective strollers and baby furniture, from defective tires and auto parts, kitchen appliances, cosmetics, surgical implant devices, bad medicines, unsafe foods, and on and on -- it's a profoundly worrying list.
The American consumer has essentially been turned into a corps of unwitting volunteers in an ongoing series of experiments to discover just how little attention our corporate overlords can be forced to pay to the safety, durability, and reliability of the products they put on the market.
One might hope that the NRA finishes going bankrupt sooner rather than later. Perhaps supplanted by an actual gun owners association, though nothing would be safe from manufacturer's lobbying money for long.
Generation Lockdown This video was created for the March for our Lives organisation. It shows a child talking a group of teachers through the lockdown procedure she was taught.
This may be the worst part. Children shouldn't have to lie awake at night, afraid to go to school the next day for fear of being shot. Are there stats on how helpful the active shooter classes have been in the event? Just how likely is a school shooting? I've seen the stat of 1 in 614,000,000. If we're going to worry our kids about something wouldn't classes about the dangers of drugs be better? At least that's something they'll have a bit of control over, the school desk vs the machine gun, not so much.
Nobody asked me, but if it were my choice and my class of children I think I would limit it to fire drills where kids quietly leave the building in an organized fashion. If the intercom tells the teacher "active shooter," she can then lock and barricade the door, while telling the children to get into the supply closet or under the desks. I don't see where advance planning is going to make a big difference, not enough to offset the fear that practice sessions will cause.
All life has risks and parents and teachers have to weigh the risks against the negative effects of a young life lived in paranoia and fear. Let the grown ups work on gun control measures and leave the kids to worry about their spelling test.
But it's equally true for adults. I know of parents where the child has just been diagnosed as deaf, only the father signs (has deaf cousins). That family has just drawn up guardianship documents to ensure the child will get deaf/signing guardians if anything should happen to him, like a random shooter at work.
Some adults must be traumatised themselves, like that cop Noor who killed Justine Diamond in Minneapolis. That's my theory about him anyway. He was just too twitchy. Mind you, I am never worried about guns when I visit. I hardly think about it.
4 dead, more injured in Darwin shooting in the far north of Australia. Darwin is pretty small - 145,000 people in 2016 according to wikkipedia. Plenty of room and opportunity for migrants if you can stand the humidity.
Sigh. All that damage with a pump action shotgun. My husband always talks about shotguns like they're almost harmless and we would all be safe to allow them as a sort of gun control middle ground. I'm sure it is better than if the Darwin man had been holding something like the Texas church shooter's AR weapon.
[Australians do make good witnesses. I appreciated their details.]
But it's equally true for adults. I know of parents where the child has just been diagnosed as deaf, only the father signs (has deaf cousins). That family has just drawn up guardianship documents to ensure the child will get deaf/signing guardians if anything should happen to him, like a random shooter at work.
Oh how sad. Living with that fear is just the worst. It is good to have the guardianship papers in hand, though, even if it's far more likely that the father will die from natural causes or in a car wreck on the way to work. My son just got paperwork in the mail yesterday from his father releasing the guardianship he had got for him 25 years ago -- it's not been needed for 20 years. The red tape just for cutting it off took over a year.*
[*A sweet young social worker came to my house to check out my son and me, and we both tried self-consciously to act "sane," which was not easy for me, especially when I tend to get all excited with delight over company, plus the house had just been painted so I had gone ahead and decorated for Christmas even though it was early October.]
Darwin is pretty small - 145,000 people in 2016 according to wikkipedia. Plenty of room and opportunity for migrants if you can stand the humidity.
Darwin doesn't seem that small by Australian standards, being the 15th largest city in Australia and the largest in the Northern Territory. The American equivalent would be San Francisco, though if you went by percentage of national population it would be more like Houston.
Sigh. All that damage with a pump action shotgun. My husband always talks about shotguns like they're almost harmless and we would all be safe to allow them as a sort of gun control middle ground. I'm sure it is better than if the Darwin man had been holding something like the Texas church shooter's AR weapon.
When discussing the difficulty in determining what constituted an "automatic or semi-automatic weapon" for the purposes of gun control laws someone suggested defining it as any firearm which uses the action of firing a shot to chamber the next round. This would class as "automatic or semi-automatic" just about everything except shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or single-action revolvers. Those things are all still very dangerous, but it seems like a start.
[quote="Crœsos;c-153063
This would class as "automatic or semi-automatic" just about everything except shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or single-action revolvers. Those things are all still very dangerous, but it seems like a start.[/quote]
This would class as "automatic or semi-automatic" just about everything except shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or single-action revolvers. Those things are all still very dangerous, but it seems like a start.
I agree, it's the very least we can do.
The least we can do is absolutely nothing, and so far we seem to be doing the least we can do.
CDC’s Wonder database shows that in 2017, 39,773 people in the US lost their lives at the point of a gun,
that is given as 12 deaths per 100 000, of which 60% were suicides. Nearly as many people died at the point of a gun as did in car accidents, 39,773 compared to 40,100. Taking out the suicides, 16,000 were killed by a gun compared with 40,000 by a car accident in the USA in 2017.
Darwin doesn't seem that small by Australian standards, being the 15th largest city in Australia and the largest in the Northern Territory. The American equivalent would be San Francisco, though if you went by percentage of national population it would be more like Houston.
At a push, there are two "cities" in the Northern Territory. I guess I was having a dig at all those people in my country who have stickers on their cars reading "fuck off we're full" and who support the detention of less than 1000 people in offshore detention (at its maximum a little over 4000) because we have an immigration problem. I know it was off topic but it's always in a corner of my mind. They have been in detention for about 7 years now.
Remember this man? The Parkland school security guard who did nothing during the students were being shot? I thought he should be fired for failing to do his job. You all thought he was only doing what anyone would do. Now he's being arrested! Even I don't agree with that.
A friend of ours worked at the Windsor border crossing when she was a student, and she said you wouldn't believe the outrage of some trying to take guns across the border. "But I need to defend myself!" "This is Canada - we don't use guns to defend ourselves".
Blame is a handy thing wave instead of doing something useful.
I think if it was my child who had died during the time he was standing there with a gun and knowledge of where the shooter was, I would be less forgiving than you. Unless you and Rossweisse are blaming the parents for "not doing something useful," to save their children.
Blame is a handy thing wave instead of doing something useful.
I think if it was my child who had died during the time he was standing there with a gun and knowledge of where the shooter was, I would be less forgiving than you. Unless you and Rossweisse are blaming the parents for "not doing something useful," to save their children
I'm human; I hate the fucker for not doing more. That hate would be incandescent if I was directly affected.
But I'm also a pragmatist; I think the greatest likelihood of his actual participation would be to just die. My armchair quarterbacking of thinking a person in that position should have sacrificed themself is a gutless thing for me to assert.
Systemically, it's idiotic to have schools be safe by virtue of some low-wage gunslinger. I very strongly assert that we should instead drastically reduce the availability of high-potency human-killing devices for civilians. Dragging some coward in for punishment brings nobody back to life, and inspires no future bravery in low-wage gunslingers. It's petty bullshit.''
ETA: I mean, I aspire to be forgiving. But this is not that.
Well, I'm in favor of serious gun control and against armed guards at schools, and, as I just said, I don't think he should be punished. However, I thought at the time and still do that he should be fired. He clearly demonstrated he isn't capable of doing the job for which he was hired.
No one ever asked him to walk into the line of fire the way some brave, unarmed teachers and students have done. The shooter was facing into the classrooms as he shot. He would have been making a deafening amount of noise. I think it's very likely that the guard could have come up behind the shooter and shot him.
I can easily forgive the guard's cowardice, or paralyzing indecision, whatever it was, but I can also forgive the parents of the children who died on his watch for wanting him punished. I would never say they were just looking for someone to blame so they could assuage their own guilt.
Remember this man? The Parkland school security guard who did nothing during the students were being shot? I thought he should be fired for failing to do his job. You all thought he was only doing what anyone would do. Now he's being arrested! Even I don't agree with that.
Disappointed but not surprised that apparently the only way an on-duty American cop can get arrested is by not shooting a suspect.
I've always thought that suggestions of turning American schools into prison-like fortresses with armed guards, aside from message it sends to kids, is that it's premised on the idea that this is strictly a PR problem. As long as kids get shot somewhere less sympathetic than a school, that solves the problem.
Thinking back to my 2-3-year residency in the Bronx back in the early 70s when arson and gang-and-drug violence were high, I recall hearing gunfire occasionally. Calling the police was almost pointless.
They'd ask where the shots were coming from; I couldn't tell. I lived in a neighborhood with hi-rises, brownstones, open spaces, you name it. Sound ricocheted around. How far away was the gunfire? I had no idea; depending on the humidity and the wind, it could sound distant or nearby. Was I sure it wasn't just firecrackers? Not at all, especially if it were in the 2-week window just before and after July 4. One jerk even asked if I'd go outside and listen, to provide better information. I said, "You can't be serious."
My sympathies go to the guard, here. First, if you're going to take the "armed guard" route to providing campus security, you need more than one guard for a multi-acre campus with multiple buildings, a student body of more than 3,000, and who-knows-how-many-faculty. That's a preposterous set-up. I work on a multi-acre, multi-building campus that's likely a bit smaller, and we have 3 security officers on duty at any given time.
A comedian remarked: if people are taking drugs and shooting each other, they're the wrong drugs. Maybe total legalisation of all drugs is an answer: might as well if you've legalised all guns. Does it matter if you die shooting up an overdose or shot in the head in school? The <whatever> amendment must cover that within the all-purpose constitution of USA which justified slavery at one point. I mean if you can use it to justify that, it's pretty good and awfully flexibly useful. Lawyers successfully argued the merits of torture recently enough there. They're pretty darn good at this sort of thing.
He clearly demonstrated he isn't capable of doing the job for which he was hired.
Did his contract specify that he should enter a building where someone is using military hardware to commit mass murder, with almost no chance of doing any more than be another victim? And, if that was in the job description wa he provided with the training and equipment necessary to give him a decent chance of success?
He clearly demonstrated he isn't capable of doing the job for which he was hired.
Did his contract specify that he should enter a building where someone is using military hardware to commit mass murder, with almost no chance of doing any more than be another victim? And, if that was in the job description wa he provided with the training and equipment necessary to give him a decent chance of success?
Despite being described as a "school security guard" Scot Peterson was Sheriff's Deputy, a member of local law enforcement. If stopping mass shootings isn't law enforcement's job, whose job is it? I'm open to arguments about inadequate equipment, training, or number of personnel on hand. What I'm very skeptical of is the suggestion that stopping murder is outside the job description of the Police/Sheriff's Department.
Thanks, a police officer isn't a security guard and I'll agree about the job description including protecting the public.
Some of the confusion is caused by designating police/sheriff's deputies assigned to schools as "school resource officers", a euphemism that mostly exists to head off descriptors like "cops in schools".
He should absolutely not have that job, no question. But punishment at this point is pure lizard-brain pettiness and do-nothing-useful theater.
Yep. Security Guards anywhere should at the very least get a living wage, but I'm also saying massive holidays, health out-of-pocket costs for life, a house a car a motorhome a home entertainment system and regular training.
...Systemically, it's idiotic to have schools be safe by virtue of some low-wage gunslinger. I very strongly assert that we should instead drastically reduce the availability of high-potency human-killing devices for civilians. Dragging some coward in for punishment brings nobody back to life, and inspires no future bravery in low-wage gunslingers. It's petty bullshit.'' ...
Agreed. (And, according to a news story in this morning's paper, the prosecutor probably doesn't have a real case against him.)
He should absolutely not have that job, no question. But punishment at this point is pure lizard-brain pettiness and do-nothing-useful theater.
Arguably, nobody should have that job. The job should not be needed. It's been well over half a century since I attended US public schools, but I'm still here, attended 7 different public schools (extras due to moving house & school districts) and there were zero SROs, guards, or any security apparatus of any kind at any of them. We had school secretaries. Granted, a few of them were fairly terrifying. How we moved in 50 years, from schools as open community resources to schools on regular lockdowns, though, has a lot more than guns involved, though I grant that's a major factor.
He clearly demonstrated he isn't capable of doing the job for which he was hired.
Did his contract specify that he should enter a building where someone is using military hardware to commit mass murder, with almost no chance of doing any more than be another victim? And, if that was in the job description wa he provided with the training and equipment necessary to give him a decent chance of success?
Despite being described as a "school security guard" Scot Peterson was Sheriff's Deputy, a member of local law enforcement. If stopping mass shootings isn't law enforcement's job, whose job is it? I'm open to arguments about inadequate equipment, training, or number of personnel on hand. What I'm very skeptical of is the suggestion that stopping murder is outside the job description of the Police/Sheriff's Department.
I just spoke to friends of mine in San Jose who used to regularly attend the garlic festival. Hearing them talk about the discussions they have as a family about what to do if they are caught up in a shooting was jolting. I'd never considered that.
AFAIK, one local broadcast TV station (KPIX) initially had exclusive coverage. Evidently, various attendees and others contacted them. I tuned in around 7 pm, and they'd shifted all their evening programming over to their secondary station, and had gone into "breaking news" mode.
Initially, KPIX was putting the situation together from phone calls, cell phone videos, and social media.
Hmmm...just now watching a little more news about it. Reportedly, after the shooter fired a shot, someone yelled out "Why are you doing this?", and the shooter replied "Because I'm angry".
Aside from whatever mental health issues the shooter may have, there need to be more ways for people to safely vent explosive, acidic anger before it goes Krakatoa all over innocent people.
And there is the craziness of gun ownership in a nutshell.
Everyone can get very angry at one point or another. If everyone has easy access to guns then many, many more people get shot. It isn’t a mental health issue, it’s a gun ownership issue.
Why does such a simple concept seem to elude so many?
Late Sunday night police were still searching for a potential accomplice, but the shooter was killed in less than a minute, Gilroy Police Chief Scot Smithee said Sunday night.
It took less than a minute for Gilroy police to engage and kill the shooter and he still managed to kill or injure over a dozen people. A pretty clear demonstration that the "Good Guy with a Gun" narrative is pure fantasy.
It's the day after and we're hearing the usual asinine public comments. The mayor is saying the town is going to remain strong, whatever that means. It wasn't an attack on the town it was an attack on defenseless people. I'm sure the mother of the six year-old boy doesn't give a hoot about the town right now.
This was done by someone so full of hate he couldn't decide whether he hated black people or yuppies, he just hated and had the means to express it. Maybe if the mayor said the town was going to make stricter gun laws it might have been worth his taking the stage.
Then there's the comment from the owner of the shop that sold the killer his guns, "I'm heartbroken this could ever happen." Right. Who could have ever, in his wildest dreams, imagined that the guns he sold would be used for killing.
It should be noted that there were two other mass shootings on the same day as the Gilroy shooting. One in Wisconsin and another in Pennsylvania. Gilroy just got more attention because it had the highest number of victims (though not the highest number of fatalities) and because two of the dead are children.
Just had a heart-stopping moment here. I was reading the news on my tablet and a banner of "breaking news" streamed across the bottom of the page, about a shooting in a Walmart carpark. My brother works for Walmart. It seemed to take hours for the additional info that it was in Texas to stream across the screen, much to my personal relief. Then I thought about the families of those for whom it wouldn't be a relief.
Comments
These are older videos. Surely it's time.
The death toll is even higher, IMO. Children are committing suicide after shootings happen in their schools. Parents of children killed in school shootings are committing suicide. People who survive mass shootings commit suicide. The unimaginable horror they go through lives with them every day.
Please tell us that it's time to talk about it.
People as prey. The predator doesn't eat it's prey in this case.
"It" is our business model. "It" is the replacement of government of the people, for the people, by the people with government of the people, by the lobbyists, for the corporations.
Capitalism's moral imperative is "Profit to the Stockholder!" So long as corporate earnings can safely and comfortably absorb the damages courts award in negligent death lawsuits -- because while gun violence takes the cake, it's far from the only game in town -- it will ever be thus.
Mortality from dangerous and poisonous toys, from defective strollers and baby furniture, from defective tires and auto parts, kitchen appliances, cosmetics, surgical implant devices, bad medicines, unsafe foods, and on and on -- it's a profoundly worrying list.
The American consumer has essentially been turned into a corps of unwitting volunteers in an ongoing series of experiments to discover just how little attention our corporate overlords can be forced to pay to the safety, durability, and reliability of the products they put on the market.
This may be the worst part. Children shouldn't have to lie awake at night, afraid to go to school the next day for fear of being shot. Are there stats on how helpful the active shooter classes have been in the event? Just how likely is a school shooting? I've seen the stat of 1 in 614,000,000. If we're going to worry our kids about something wouldn't classes about the dangers of drugs be better? At least that's something they'll have a bit of control over, the school desk vs the machine gun, not so much.
Nobody asked me, but if it were my choice and my class of children I think I would limit it to fire drills where kids quietly leave the building in an organized fashion. If the intercom tells the teacher "active shooter," she can then lock and barricade the door, while telling the children to get into the supply closet or under the desks. I don't see where advance planning is going to make a big difference, not enough to offset the fear that practice sessions will cause.
All life has risks and parents and teachers have to weigh the risks against the negative effects of a young life lived in paranoia and fear. Let the grown ups work on gun control measures and leave the kids to worry about their spelling test.
[Australians do make good witnesses. I appreciated their details.]
Oh how sad. Living with that fear is just the worst. It is good to have the guardianship papers in hand, though, even if it's far more likely that the father will die from natural causes or in a car wreck on the way to work. My son just got paperwork in the mail yesterday from his father releasing the guardianship he had got for him 25 years ago -- it's not been needed for 20 years. The red tape just for cutting it off took over a year.*
[*A sweet young social worker came to my house to check out my son and me, and we both tried self-consciously to act "sane," which was not easy for me, especially when I tend to get all excited with delight over company, plus the house had just been painted so I had gone ahead and decorated for Christmas even though it was early October.]
Darwin doesn't seem that small by Australian standards, being the 15th largest city in Australia and the largest in the Northern Territory. The American equivalent would be San Francisco, though if you went by percentage of national population it would be more like Houston.
When discussing the difficulty in determining what constituted an "automatic or semi-automatic weapon" for the purposes of gun control laws someone suggested defining it as any firearm which uses the action of firing a shot to chamber the next round. This would class as "automatic or semi-automatic" just about everything except shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or single-action revolvers. Those things are all still very dangerous, but it seems like a start.
This would class as "automatic or semi-automatic" just about everything except shotguns, bolt-action rifles, or single-action revolvers. Those things are all still very dangerous, but it seems like a start.[/quote]
I agree, it's the very least we can do.
The least we can do is absolutely nothing, and so far we seem to be doing the least we can do.
According to CNBC there were an "an estimated 40,100 motor vehicle deaths" in 2017 in the USA.
According to this Guardian article
that is given as 12 deaths per 100 000, of which 60% were suicides. Nearly as many people died at the point of a gun as did in car accidents, 39,773 compared to 40,100. Taking out the suicides, 16,000 were killed by a gun compared with 40,000 by a car accident in the USA in 2017.
Comparing that to the UK which has 50-60 gun deaths a year in a population of 56 million, so one per million, without splitting out suicides. There were 1 792 fatalities from car accidents in 2017.
At a push, there are two "cities" in the Northern Territory. I guess I was having a dig at all those people in my country who have stickers on their cars reading "fuck off we're full" and who support the detention of less than 1000 people in offshore detention (at its maximum a little over 4000) because we have an immigration problem. I know it was off topic but it's always in a corner of my mind. They have been in detention for about 7 years now.
I'm human; I hate the fucker for not doing more. That hate would be incandescent if I was directly affected.
But I'm also a pragmatist; I think the greatest likelihood of his actual participation would be to just die. My armchair quarterbacking of thinking a person in that position should have sacrificed themself is a gutless thing for me to assert.
Systemically, it's idiotic to have schools be safe by virtue of some low-wage gunslinger. I very strongly assert that we should instead drastically reduce the availability of high-potency human-killing devices for civilians. Dragging some coward in for punishment brings nobody back to life, and inspires no future bravery in low-wage gunslingers. It's petty bullshit.''
ETA: I mean, I aspire to be forgiving. But this is not that.
No one ever asked him to walk into the line of fire the way some brave, unarmed teachers and students have done. The shooter was facing into the classrooms as he shot. He would have been making a deafening amount of noise. I think it's very likely that the guard could have come up behind the shooter and shot him.
I can easily forgive the guard's cowardice, or paralyzing indecision, whatever it was, but I can also forgive the parents of the children who died on his watch for wanting him punished. I would never say they were just looking for someone to blame so they could assuage their own guilt.
Disappointed but not surprised that apparently the only way an on-duty American cop can get arrested is by not shooting a suspect.
I've always thought that suggestions of turning American schools into prison-like fortresses with armed guards, aside from message it sends to kids, is that it's premised on the idea that this is strictly a PR problem. As long as kids get shot somewhere less sympathetic than a school, that solves the problem.
They'd ask where the shots were coming from; I couldn't tell. I lived in a neighborhood with hi-rises, brownstones, open spaces, you name it. Sound ricocheted around. How far away was the gunfire? I had no idea; depending on the humidity and the wind, it could sound distant or nearby. Was I sure it wasn't just firecrackers? Not at all, especially if it were in the 2-week window just before and after July 4. One jerk even asked if I'd go outside and listen, to provide better information. I said, "You can't be serious."
My sympathies go to the guard, here. First, if you're going to take the "armed guard" route to providing campus security, you need more than one guard for a multi-acre campus with multiple buildings, a student body of more than 3,000, and who-knows-how-many-faculty. That's a preposterous set-up. I work on a multi-acre, multi-building campus that's likely a bit smaller, and we have 3 security officers on duty at any given time.
Despite being described as a "school security guard" Scot Peterson was Sheriff's Deputy, a member of local law enforcement. If stopping mass shootings isn't law enforcement's job, whose job is it? I'm open to arguments about inadequate equipment, training, or number of personnel on hand. What I'm very skeptical of is the suggestion that stopping murder is outside the job description of the Police/Sheriff's Department.
Some of the confusion is caused by designating police/sheriff's deputies assigned to schools as "school resource officers", a euphemism that mostly exists to head off descriptors like "cops in schools".
Yep. Security Guards anywhere should at the very least get a living wage, but I'm also saying massive holidays, health out-of-pocket costs for life, a house a car a motorhome a home entertainment system and regular training.
Arguably, nobody should have that job. The job should not be needed. It's been well over half a century since I attended US public schools, but I'm still here, attended 7 different public schools (extras due to moving house & school districts) and there were zero SROs, guards, or any security apparatus of any kind at any of them. We had school secretaries. Granted, a few of them were fairly terrifying. How we moved in 50 years, from schools as open community resources to schools on regular lockdowns, though, has a lot more than guns involved, though I grant that's a major factor.
I'm sure thoughts and prayers will be offered.
I do hope some change comes from this.
AFAIK, one local broadcast TV station (KPIX) initially had exclusive coverage. Evidently, various attendees and others contacted them. I tuned in around 7 pm, and they'd shifted all their evening programming over to their secondary station, and had gone into "breaking news" mode.
Initially, KPIX was putting the situation together from phone calls, cell phone videos, and social media.
Hmmm...just now watching a little more news about it. Reportedly, after the shooter fired a shot, someone yelled out "Why are you doing this?", and the shooter replied "Because I'm angry".
Aside from whatever mental health issues the shooter may have, there need to be more ways for people to safely vent explosive, acidic anger before it goes Krakatoa all over innocent people.
(votive)
Everyone can get very angry at one point or another. If everyone has easy access to guns then many, many more people get shot. It isn’t a mental health issue, it’s a gun ownership issue.
Why does such a simple concept seem to elude so many?
It took less than a minute for Gilroy police to engage and kill the shooter and he still managed to kill or injure over a dozen people. A pretty clear demonstration that the "Good Guy with a Gun" narrative is pure fantasy.
This was done by someone so full of hate he couldn't decide whether he hated black people or yuppies, he just hated and had the means to express it. Maybe if the mayor said the town was going to make stricter gun laws it might have been worth his taking the stage.
Then there's the comment from the owner of the shop that sold the killer his guns, "I'm heartbroken this could ever happen." Right. Who could have ever, in his wildest dreams, imagined that the guns he sold would be used for killing.
Fucking guns make mass killings too easy.