We’re making the national news again, multiple murder department. Here’s some excerpts of the AP report via The Huffington Post about a killing spree from 5:30 to 5:55 a.m. this morning.
A chaotic 25-minute shooting spree through Orange County early Tuesday left a trail of dead and injured victims before the shooter stopped and killed himself, police said.
…
The shootings started with an apparent carjacking just after 5 a.m. Tuesday in an unincorporated Ladera Ranch area of Orange County, said Tustin police Supervisor Dave Kanoti.
…
Officers found one dead person and one wounded at State Route 55 and McFadden Street, two shot and wounded at Interstate 5 and Red Hill Avenue, and one dead at Del Amo Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The alleged shooter then drove to the intersection of Wanda Road and Katella Avenue and shot himself in the middle of the intersection, Kanoti said.
One person was reportedly killed in the initial carjacking.
People are welcome to include updates below over the course of the day (and beyond).
Our condolences to the loved ones of the victims, who have not yet been identified. For now, therefore, that potentially includes all of us.
The soul-sickness is spreading. What are we going to do about it? Not just all over the country — here.
Update, 2:40 p.m.: HuffPo reports that the killer was Ali Syed, was a 20-year-old, unemployed, part-time student who lived at the Ladera Ranch residence where the first victim was slain. As noted in a comment below, the OC Weekly has reported that that house at 5 Red Leaf Lane is owned by Irfan and Sarwat Syed, the latter of whom is reportedly 42.
From the HuffPo story:
Orange County sheriff’s spokesman Jim Amormino said the woman killed at the home was in her 20s. She was not identified and is not related to the shooter, he said.
Jordan said Syed stated to one carjacking victim: “I don’t want to hurt you. I killed somebody. Today is my last day.”
The violence began at 4:45 a.m., when deputies responded to a call in Ladera Ranch, a sleepy inland town about 55 miles southeast of Los Angeles. They found the woman shot multiple times.
Jason Glass, who lives across the street, said he couldn’t sleep and was watching TV in his garage with the door partly open when he heard what sounded like gun shots.
According to Glass, a man and three children were escorted out of the house at some point after the shooting. It is not clear how the police were able to ascertain that the unidentified victim was unrelated to Ali Syed.
What are we going to do about these sick, tormented souls who choose to act on this behavior? Nothing. Government can’t regulate every aspect of our lives. Government isn’t the psych ward of the soul.
My initial reaction to your question is: impede them.
Do I impede them with stick shift or automatic transmission?
Maybe background checks for gun purchases, as a start. So those would be transmitted automatically.
Sorry, bad joke on my part. My sympathies are truly with the family of the person who was killed today.
I agree with you that background checks are needed. You’ll get no argument out of me. I don’t believe that some folks should own a gun. Will it help though? I don’t think so.
You may be right — but then we need to think about what we do in a society where even background checks don’t help. Knowing what led to the initial killing would help.
Here’s an update from HuffPo:
“A young man shot a woman to death in a home early Tuesday then went on a spree of carjackings and random shootings across Orange County that left two more people dead and three others wounded before the gunman killed himself, authorities said.”
So, depending on the man’s relationship with the woman, another impediment may be improved services related to domestic violence. Improved mental health care would very likely be an impediment. A more sound drug policy might be one as well. But the guns (including a shotgun in the car) do seem to have played a major role in the successful carjackings.
As usual, our paid-to-do-this friends at the Weekly are providing decent comprehensive coverage. Happy to see them earning their feed.
From that Weekly story, we learn that one of the shooting victims was a former colleague of the Weekly’s Amber Stephens. She and the victim’s family and friends have our sympathy.
I’d really just like to suggest that people go check out the Weekly’s developing coverage; this is the good thing that they’re good at. I’m going to claim Fair Use for three paragraphs of their recent update (just for the benefit of those who aren’t going there), which may (or may not) shed some disturbing light over what may have happened here:
The Weekly then reports on Todd Spitzer’s comments, which I won’t.
The WEEKLY’S Amber? She’s one of ours! An OJ alumna through and through.
She’s now the Weekly‘s. She has also apparently since been informed that her former colleague was not among the fatalities. See the strikeout type
if you can read itat the Weekly‘s story and their update.Blame the violent video games.
It’s the violent video games aka killing simulators, killing stimulators, murder desensitizers. From today’s OC Register, front-page above the fold, “A LONER: Shooter loved video games.” Violent video games play a major role.
With violent video games becoming more and more popular and prolific over the years, you would expect that violent crime among teens to be going up. But since 1995, violent crime among the 10-24 set has gone down dramatically.
Would you care to explain that?
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/vca_temp-trends.html
See also;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/
How many cars were used in these murders? Were the cars fully automatic or stick?
Such well-practiced disdain. You must be proud.
Cook does hate cars. Which distinguishes him from other conservatives.
Americans. Our love affair with personal transportation via internal combustion knows no political ideology.
Here’s an interesting take on today’s murders — from six months ago in Salon: http://www.salon.com/2012/08/08/unintended_causation/
As long as you will have one with the gun and many without it who can’t have it– the one with the gun will be tempted to use it.
That is a basic principle of the power advantage.
However the liberal left will never get it!……… but they will learn or die.
People are tempted to do all sorts of things. We don’t always counter that temptation with imminent threats to shoot them.
“We don’t always counter that temptation with imminent threats to shoot them”……….. Hmmmmmm
I am sure that you will counter that temptation by jamming the flower into the barrel of the gunman.
The world was perfectly balanced by the principles of the nature and evolved perfectly well until the liberal left start unbalancing it.
When did this happen — before or after the end of April 1945?
See what you’ve done to the Exile.
You’ve made him unbalanced.
Let sleeping dogs lie!
Your still here, you old dog ?
What happened to your grand plan of leaving for distant shores where “true freedom” still exists ? You know if we have our way the liberals are going to regulate guns, make employers pay a living wage, and force universal health care upon everyone. What a crazy world that will be.
It’s time for you to move your food bowl… while you still can.
did this stuff always happen or did it just start with cable and twenty four hour news. if it has always been around, then it has nothing to do with guns or universal background checks or lack of funding for mental health, it has to do with our nature and our dna. if it is a result of cable news, the simply stop watching fox and msnbc and there will be no problems
“it has to do with our nature and our dna”……….. Hmmmmmm
Especially inferior DNA.
OK, time for our ritual dance where I ask you what you mean by that and you pretend not to mean what we all know you mean. Ready?
What do you mean by “inferior DNA,” Stanislaw?
(It’s almost charming how you think that my leaving your use of the term there somehow helps bring about the change you seek in the world. Almost.)
“What do you mean by “inferior DNA,” Stanislaw?”……… Hmmmmmmm
The opposite of the “ferior”….. the green DNA — progressively speaking.
In other words; the DNA which does not pollute the DNA pool.
What DNA “pollutes the DNA pool,” Stanislaw? That of bigots? (If so, I think that that’s learned, not genetic.)
Obviously you are undereducated re green DNA.
So I suggest that you refer to the medical facts: http://www.jewishgeneticdiseases.org/jewish-genetic-diseases/
You may be carrier of about 35 identified and testable genetic disorders so you may be gross DNA polluter.
So your position, Stanislaw, is that DNA of Jews grossly pollutes the “DNA pool” due to “identified and testable genetic disorders”? Your concern here is along the lines of not passing the genes for Tay-Sachs, BRCA-based cancer risk, into the non-Jewish population?
How, in your opinion, does DNA from Jews in this respect compare to DNA from Czechs? Are there testable genetic disorders there? Or is it just that they are not yet identified?
Do you think that the incidence of such disorders is so great that Jews should not be reproducing? If that’s not your point, what is it?
And what is the meaning of “green DNA”?
I’m of Eastern European extraction and have a genetic condition called hemochromatosis. These genetic diseases cut across ethnic lines.
Silence! Am giving Stanislaw sufficient rope!
No conspiracy theories on this one yet, because we have not been fed a bunch of obvious misinformation, disinformation and inconsistencies and changing stories and cover ups and internet deletions and scrubbing of internet pictures and interviews!
At least not yet.
Oh, and the Federal government has not leaped yet at the chance to clearly exploit this shooting story to disarm dissenting Americans.
How do you know that we haven’t been fed misinformation?
Less access to guns is a pretty obvious reaction to this, so you’d better get into gear.
No Greg, the government is not going to act on this one, because The Mainstream Media was also reporting today that Joe Biden was saying in a Town Hall meeting that people should just buy a shotgun!!!!!!!
Huh? what was that?
That people should just “buy a shot gun!”
what did our mystery shooting involve this morning? A Shot gun.
and I take it back, this does have the possibility of conspiracy in it, until we discover who the first mystery victim is, and what the motive was.
Nothing on the front page of CNN or Huffington Post on this at 11:30 in the evening. unless it is buried somewhere. What do you mean? You know. The story has been buried for obscure reasons. ABC, NBC, and CBS had blurbs at bottom of the front page. Now they are saying that Adam Lanza was trying to out do the Norway massacre? huh? This was a larger story for them on the front page for obscure reasons of course.
Which ass are they pulling this stuff out of? The Government-Media ass probably.
O.K. So the Orange County Register is reporting that the couple that shares a wall with the murder suspect “did not hear anything that sounded like a shotgun blast” and that he definitely “knows what a shotgun blast sounds like”
What the F?
Another damn conspiracy!
This sounds like it’s a game to you. Poor use of a good mind.
I get that you’re opposed to gun control. Apparently, this position is so overriding, for whatever reason, that you’re now willing to ignore most other opportunities for activism in order to pursue the possibility that, for example, the dead woman in Ladera Ranch did not die of a shotgun wound to the face, but of something else.
First world preoccupations.
It’s a tragic event, plain and simple.
Greg,
CA already has background checks and waiting periods on ALL firearms transactions, even personal ones of “used” firearms must be transacted through an FFL with a Dealer Record of Sale being filed through the state Department of Justice. It’s been that way for a while now.
I attempted to educate all of you about the lethality of shotguns.
If Adam Lanza had taken a shotgun into Sandy Hook, how long would it have taken before he had to stop and reload, thus presenting an opportunity to be overtaken?
anon,
Your argument is invalid. None of us will ever know if Adam Lanza would have or could have done more or less tragedy had he been armed differently.
For you to claim otherwise is pure unadulterated BS on your part, period.
Well that’s a very nice little cop-out on your part. Suddenly you don’t know enough about guns to have an educated opinion .
I think that he could have done less damage had he been armed with only a BB gun, more if he had had a working thermonuclear weapon.
He could have killed 26 people in the school in the same period of time with a shotgun, even given the need to reload, but he might have had to line the kids up properly first. And kids can be uncooperative, you know.
He would have been rushed and overtaken by adults during what would have been one of his frequent re-loads and would have killed far fewer people with a shotgun.
Yes, one bullet from a shotgun will inflict more damage to a human body than one bullet from an AR. But equating the two in terms of killing efficiency is absurd. Particularly if the AR is armed with high-capacity magazines, as Lanza’s was.
I know and I agree. The notion that one can’t estimate comparative damage seems absurd.
I believe, by the way, that you’re about to be told that shotguns use “shells” filled with “shot” or “pellets” rather than bullets. (Unless someone uses rock salt or something like that.)
“He would have been rushed and overtaken by adults during what would have been one of his frequent re-loads and would have killed far fewer people with a shotgun.”
Assumes facts not in evidence. Move to strike.
Oh really? You never use common sense when evaluating various situations and scenarios?
Assuming a 8 shell magazine loaded with “0” buckshot, that’s 72 lethal projectiles fired by a 12 gauge shotgun per load.
I have no idea how many times the shooter in Newton shot, if he emptied a magazine, or if he even attempted to reload his weapon. I also have no idea how many able bodied adults were in a position to confront the shooter or if they were present in a group large enough to incapacitate a murderer who, even while reloading, would have been armed with a significantly sized club.
Just don’t run around posting like a jackass claiming that less harm would result from 72 shards of hot metal flying around a small class room and labeling it “common sense”. It is in fact nonsensical.
At least I didn’t engage in hyperbole.
“72 shards of hot metal flying around a small class room”
You’re not above embellishing YOUR imagination of a particular scenario now, are you?
Hyperbole?
Try math.
8 shells x 9 shots/shell = 72 shards of metal flying about, all of which are quite hot.
Yes, and they’re all flying around the room. Got it. Do they bounce once each? Or multiple times? How long do they fly?
So it’s OK for YOU to imagine a scenario, but not other people. I’ll keep that in mind.
Well, if you want to be cute about it.
It would depend upon the angle at which the shot struck a surface, the material of the surface, and how far away the shooter is from the surface to determine the likelihood and angle of deflection. Subsequent deflections would occur based on similar factors.
You drew a conclusion based on premises which are patently false. I neither drew up a scenario nor drew a conclusion off of one.
So, yes, everyone is free to imagine whatever morbid scenario at Newton that they wish. You are not, because, well, you apparently can’t do math.
“You drew a conclusion based on premises which are patently false.”
You can’t prove that ANY of my premises are false. You can only disagree with them.
Which you have done. Now go back to your abacus.
Cantor, give me one example of a shotgun shell that contained 9 “lethal” projectiles.
No one has ever fired a single shotgun round and killed 9 people.
Let’s make our arguments reasonable.
Actually, I can.
“He would have been rushed and overtaken by adults . . .”
No, he wouldn’t. Not only were adults not present in significant numbers, no adults possessed a tactical advantage over a murderer with a giant club.
” . . . during what would have been one of his frequent re-loads . . .”
There’s no evidence to show the shooter reloaded, intended to reload, or had the skill set to reload any weapon, let alone a shotgun. There’s also no evidence to contradict the shooter using multiple weapons vs. reloading
” . . . and would have killed far fewer people with a shotgun.”
As stated, a standard issue shotgun has the capacity to issue significantly more deadly and maiming metal than a fully loaded 30-rd AR-15. The evidence supports more people getting hurt or killed; not less.
“Yes, one bullet from a shotgun will inflict more damage to a human body than one bullet from an AR.”
Well, no. It doesn’t. It depends on range, shooter skill, and what’s in the path between the target and the shooter. A .223 round has the capacity to induce hydrostatic shock . . . Perhaps you’re attempting to compare dead to dead-er, which isn’t a thing.
“But equating the two in terms of killing efficiency is absurd.”
Actually, it’s not. Comparing death counts of little kids is absurd.
“Particularly if the AR is armed with high-capacity magazines, as Lanza’s was.”
The magazine capacity of the AR has nothing to do with the efficiency of the weapon. You’re miss using the word “efficiency”. You meant total lethality, not deaths per shot, which is still just as morbid. Again, as stated, a shotgun can pump out just as much death in the same or less time than an assault rifle at the ranges we’re hypothesizing.
Scadoosh.
D– each of the 9 pieces of shot have equal potential to be lethal. It’s a true statement.
You are 100% correct that it’s impossible for all 9 to cause a mortal wound.
My statement was STRICTLY meant to demonstrate that a shotgun pumps out a lot of bad stuff. A serious amount of bad stuff. So much bad stuff, that it is absolutely capable of issuing unimaginable bad news in close quarters and making a claim that less death would have resulted by exchanging a shotgun for an AR-15 is plain ignorant.
That’s all. Then I got sucked down the rabbit hole.
“No, he wouldn’t. Not only were adults not present in significant numbers, no adults possessed a tactical advantage over a murderer with a giant club.”
You can’t prove that a single adult could NOT have rushed Lanza if he had been re-loading a shotgun. I posit that it would have been more likely that he could have been rushed if he were frequently re-loading a shotgun vs. having a high-capacity magazine on an AR. You disagree. You have not, however, proven anything.
“There’s no evidence to show the shooter reloaded, intended to reload, or had the skill set to reload any weapon, let alone a shotgun. There’s also no evidence to contradict the shooter using multiple weapons vs. reloading”
Not true. http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-06/news/hc-sandyhook-lanza-earplugs-20130106_1_adam-lanza-nancy-lanza-yogananda-street
“As stated, a standard issue shotgun has the capacity to issue significantly more deadly and maiming metal than a fully loaded 30-rd AR-15. The evidence supports more people getting hurt or killed; not less.”
I’ll let Demo’s astute point cover that.
“Well, no. It doesn’t. It depends on range, shooter skill, and what’s in the path between the target and the shooter. A .223 round has the capacity to induce hydrostatic shock . . . Perhaps you’re attempting to compare dead to dead-er, which isn’t a thing.”
No. It depends. Which is it?
“Actually, it’s not. Comparing death counts of little kids is absurd.”
Again, Demo’s point is relevant here.
“Again, as stated, a shotgun can pump out just as much death in the same or less time than an assault rifle at the ranges we’re hypothesizing.”
Opinion. Not proven.
Anon, ain’t nobody got time for dat.
That’s the first article I’ve seen with a shot count. Scary and interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Anywho, D didn’t make a point much different from mine. Let’s just agree that there’s insufficient evidence to make a claim that a shotgun would have resulted in fewer dead kids.
“Let’s just agree that there’s insufficient evidence to make a claim that a shotgun would have resulted in fewer dead kids.”
Yet mass gun shooters in recent years, predominately, are not choosing to unleash their carnage with shotguns, are they?
Why is that?
Sure they are.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
More shotguns and resolvers used than “assault weapons”.
Why does a murderer choose the weapon they choose? I have no idea. I can tell you this though: An AR-15 is designed to be useful up to 200yds out. Inside of 20 yds, it’s no more lethal than a shotgun, which is very much designed to be used inside of 20 yds.
Mass Shooters Weapons 1982-2012
Semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons = 103
Shotguns = 19
From the very link you provided.
“Why does a murderer choose the weapon they choose? I have no idea.”
I have an idea. They choose the weapon they think can unleash the most damage in the least amount of time.
Dude, you can’t just shift the goal posts like that.
You made a claim about shotguns vs assault rifles. Don’t go grouping semi automatic hand guns in it to inflate your numbers.
The data is the data. It speaks for itself and you don’t need to twist it.
Anyway, the point stands as where we can agree to compromise: there is NO evidence allowing one to conclude that using a shotgun instead of an AR results in fewer dead kids.
Dude, I didn’t shift the goal posts. I never specifically said that mass killers using guns predominately choose “assault weapons.” I simply said they don’t, predominately, choose shotguns. And that is true.
But would you agree with these stats, according to the link you sent?
Semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons = 103
Revolvers and shotguns = 39
I would also note the preference for guns that accommodate high-capacity magazines.
Yeah, you did. Now we’re talking about weapons of choice. Shifted! (Yes, I agree with the data. That’s why I linked to it and said it speaks for itself, including that shotguns get used in mass murder.)
Ain’t nobody got time for dat. Back to the compromise point. Agree?
Oh for the love of god, would you please stop misrepresenting what I say?
I said;
“Yet mass gun shooters in recent years, predominately, are not choosing to unleash their carnage with shotguns, are they?”
Did you miss that? You then said that “Sure they are.”
You are incorrect about that.
You now say “That’s why I linked to it and said it speaks for itself, including that shotguns get used in mass murder.” as if I suggested that they don’t.
I didn’t say that shot guns don’t get used. I suggested that they are not, predominately, the weapon of choice. Is that clear?
Fine.
Tragic, yes, but neither plain nor simple.
This may astound you, but the lethality of shotguns (except when fired by Vice-Presidents at people’s faces) is not actually news to anyone. Thanks, though.
Shotguns seem to be appropriate for household protection. That means that some murders such as the initial one in Ladera Ranch may be inevitable. I do wonder, though, how Ali Syed got his hand onto what I’m guessing may have been his parents’ shotgun. Did he pass a background check? If the above guess is correct, probably not. (Would he have? Can’t say.) So that raises the question of how he got access to the shotgun. Was it properly secured? How should it be properly secured? Should their be biometric keys, for example. In their absence, what liability do the parents have?
See? Not plain, not simple, however much you’d prefer to brush this one under the rug.
From the news reports, it reads as this kid was a troubled youth from an upscale neighborhood.
………………..
An unemployed sometime-student who lived at home with his parents
He was unemployed but had been taking college-prep classes
Serra is a safe and caring environment where students experience a second chance to achieve academically and grow socially. A continuation high school.
“I swear, I don’t even know if I’ve ever seen him,” Smith said. “He’s a ghost to me.”
Syed looked like a guy who kept to himself when he saw him a couple times around the neighborhood.
Yeah, it reads that way — in fact, even knowing only that he was a youth and that it was an upscale neighborhood, we could fairly infer the “troubled” part.
“even knowing only that he was a youth and that it was an upscale neighborhood, we could fairly infer the “troubled” part.”
Counselor, please, that’s just a tad prejudiced, isn’t it?
No, it’s post-judiced, based on the evidence of him murdering a lot of people. To me, that’s suggests “troubled.” Not to you?
Plain and simple, at this point there isn’t enough factual information, publicly available to be able to have a well reasoned discussion about. We know enough to call it tragic, and it certainly is that.
Do we know enough to call into question what additional measures could have been taken to try to prevent it? Not even close.
You can purchase a shotgun/rifle at 18 yrs of age as long as you pass the background check.Handguns at 21 years.
As for biometric “safety systems” on firearms, are a media legend. Some have been in the testing phases, but none are in the mass marketplace. Frankly, nobody wants them, outside of the gun ban crowd, not even Marshals who are in positions where the threat of being disarmed by a known and adjudicated criminal is arguably the greatest risk.
It’s a lot like a bunch of the other BS media factoids that have become the daily drivel of the lazy media and “everyone” seems to believe is true. Even those who are otherwise, seemingly well educated.
The matter of lethality, counselor, was an issue raised in an earlier response, as THE reason to ban semi-auto rifles, that look like military rifles. If you are parroting the VP’s “expert” advise about home defense, well I’m not going to argue his advise, any more than to question how long he’s been a firearms or home defense expert.
We know (or, nod to DubI, we’re told) that he shot his first victim with a shotgun. Therefore, he had a shotgun. Therefore, we can ask how he came to have a shotgun.
I didn’t say that they are in the mass marketplace. But they could be. Or, at a minimum, we could require (either by statutory decree or by establishing definitions of what constitutes negligence in the event of harm) that such firearms be kept in gun safes with biometric locks — either now or as soon as that technology becomes available. I know that the families of several survivors might today wish that that had been in effect.
I have had plenty of friends who are gun owners and they have overwhelmingly said that for one in my situation a shotgun for home protection would be the way to go. That conclusion has nothing to do with the VP, though he may have received similar advice.
Please be advised Esq. Diamond, I demand that you print the truth about my responses to your Zionist crapola or they will be printed elsewhere.
http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2013/hey-wait-a-minute-ive-seen-this-show-before/#comment-147920
I have a choice? How wonderful! Well, then — elsewhere!
“I have a choice? How wonderful! Well, then — elsewhere!”……….. Hmmmmmmm
The sword has double edge!
I hope that you will remember your idiotic statement when the Iran will chose to purify the human genetic pool.
Greg, some info for you.
I do not own a gun.
I have never fired anything more than a bb gun.
I have never cared about gun control, except that I use to speak ill of assault weapons just like any other loyal liberal.
And then I started to investigate Sandy Hook, and then other shootings.
The current Administration and other factions of the government are clearly exploiting the situation for divisive political reasons, and the corporate media cover up of all of the raw information is unbelievable.
I am now convinced that Major Media is working hand in hand with government wishes.
You’ve turned anti-gun-control based on, from what I can tell, a fantasy of armed progressive resistance to government oppression — or perhaps just from the frisson one gets from believing in a conspiracy. I’m sad to see it, because I find it a distraction from accomplishing what can be done, but I’ve seen worse. If you want to write up what you’ve found and submit it to Vern to publish, he may well give you a forum. It should involve more than merely raising questions about unanswered facts, though, as some facts are generally left unanswered, given that we don’t have video of every moment of every event happening everywhere.
Why is there such a sudden rush of pro-gun-control ideology? It’s because the gun industry and its lobbyists have been so proficient and damming up the pressure for it for so long.
This whole gun control discussion has taken a real on a real tit-for-tat quality that seems totally absurd. If only this law were in place then it would have prevented this type of violent spree, or that wouldn’t have prevented the violence in this case because……we’re now counting how many pellets are in a shotgun shell.
It’s going to take a multitude of regulations to ratchet down the endless carnage that we see multiple times a day in this country from guns.
One law is not going to solve all of the problems that we have.
You know the list:
Background checks.
Magazine limits.
Universal mental health coverage.
And more as deemed necessary.
What we need is something comparable to the vehicle code; a lot of laws that try to make it safer on the roads. One law doesn’t keep you from getting killed by somebody else on the way home, it takes many. The small government, I don’t want any regulations, because it takes away from my freedom argument doesn’t work with cars, or with guns.
We need gun regulations more than what we have now. What we have just isn’t getting the job done.
I think we should go a step further on the magazines. Let’s just ban them all together. If it ain’t fixed, it ain’t legal.
Whatever rules apply to the average citizen ought to also apply to law enforcement. They’re civilians after all . . . and they’re also not perfect.
It sends the message that we, as a society, distinguish between combat arms and self defense. Combat arms belong in an armory and no where else.
“Whatever rules apply to the average citizen ought to also apply to law enforcement. They’re civilians after all . . . and they’re also not perfect.”
No, they’re not civilians. Neither are firefighters.
They’re not perfect, nor are people in the military.
I’m okay with police being better armed than me, or my crazy neighbor. I respect authority, and so should you, for everybody’s sake. If there is problem with the authority, then we should deal with it as a collective. Not on an individual basis.
So an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine in every squad car is OK, but having one in a locked gun safe in your closet is not?
I think it’s important to be clear about what’s inherently dangerous and what’s not.
If the weapon is good enough to stop a criminal, then it’s good enough to stop a criminal in my house or on the street. If the weapon is just inherently dangerous, then it doesn’t belong on the street.
Last time I checked, there were only 5 branches of the military. What branch do beat cops and firefighters fall under?
From Merriam Webster…
Definition of CIVILIAN
2: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
Is that clear enough?
“If the weapon is just inherently dangerous, then it doesn’t belong on the street.”
What’s dangerous is people not in a position of authority, with out regular training and testing of competency, possessing military style weapons.
I’m not worried about an incompetent ass shooting himself. I’m worried about Chris Dorner or the asshole cops who put 35 rounds in the back of a 72 yo’s pick up.
Sounds like Webster needs a lesson.
You make no sense.
And you think Webster needs a lesson?
D.
You’re ridiculous.
Dr D, help me out here.
I’ve been AWOL for the past three hours. (I’m not entirely sorry about that, I have to admit.)
Will you be satisfied if I say that those of you on both sides seem perfectly able to take care of yourselves? I don’t want to try to figure out who’s right — if anyone.
I’ll help you out here.
You think that you know the definition of civilian better than the dictionary.
You think that cops should have only the same firepower as you, so that you can what? Have a fair fight with them?
That’s absurd. Syn. ridiculous
Look, Captain, I have NO idea how you got from what I said to where you are, but your leash has officially run out. I don’t have to put up with your defamatory bullshit.
A year ago, Webster’s dictionary was being thrown in the face of LBGT folks to show them what marriage meant. It’s a blatant appeal to authority and if you want to use it to define what the word means, fine. It’s wrong, but fine.
How dare you speak for a slain officer’s family and how dare you presume to put me in a position of hunting down Dorner. I was no where near that claim.
From where I sit, if you want to toss out that kind of half ass claim, you better stick your name on it. Otherwise you’re just another cowardly blogger tearing down someone’s reputation for shits and giggles.
I think that cops should abide by arms control to set an example of what’s safe and proper in a community. Leading by example goes a long way towards bettering a community.
You take your conspiracy theory about me and shove it straight up your ass.
” I’m worried about Chris Dorner or the asshole cops who put 35 rounds in the back of a 72 yo’s pick up.”
Same old story with you….
“What I wrote is not what I meant.”
Indeed it is the same story. I walk into a conversation attempting to contribute to exchange of wisdom, and you find an excuse to act like an asshole.
I am worried about Chris Dorner and the specific cops in Torrance because they are trained individuals competent with firearms. Their competence increased their lethality (or potential lethality in Torrance); it didn’t detract from it.
It’s a legitimate concern and has nothing to do with wanting to get into a fire fight with either one of them. It’s about believing that people are fallible and that our system isn’t constructed to absorb our faults as human beings.
I don’t know why you find it necessary to attack me on a regular basis. It stops today.
Oh, and I want footage of when you walk into the police department and inform the officers that they are “civilians.”
They may disagree with your definition. Civilians don’t usually worry about getting shot at in the course of their workday.
I’m sure that you’re proud to stick your name on that.
I know several LEOs who prefer civilian. They go to their family at the end of their work day and they enjoy having a beer with their friend.
If somone serving the public wants to put themselves on par with some 18yo getting blown up in Iraq, that’s their business.
Calling someone a civilian isn’t an insult. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. You got a problem with the average Joe Public, punk?
I would also never presume to walk into a law enforcement office and tell a cop who he or she is and what he or she should call themselves.
Ever.
“I don’t know why you find it necessary to attack me on a regular basis. It stops today.”
No it doesn’t stop today. You make absurd statements, and I will attack those comments on a regular basis.
I’ve held back over the last few months, THAT ends today.
Be ready to deal with facts, definitions, and opinions other than your own. It’s a big world out there, and not everybody agrees with you.
Get used to it.
“What’s dangerous is people not in a position of authority, with out regular training and testing of competency, possessing military style weapons”
My reply: “I’m not worried about an incompetent ass shooting himself. I’m worried about Chris Dorner or the asshole cops who put 35 rounds in the back of a 72 yo’s pick up.”
It’s pretty clear I’m directly addressing your point that people in positions of authority, with regular training and testing of competency, who possess military style weapons MAY ALSO do bad things with them.
You had no right to say what you said. Attach your name to it, apologize, and stop acting like a cowardly jackass. Otherwise, you’re adding no meaningful contribution to this blog. There’s a place for people like you. This isn’t it.
The name calling usually means that you’ve lost the thread.
I learned that here over the years….
I’m amazed you’ve learned anything . . . or that you’ve ever admitted to losing anything.
Hell, I’m amazed you can post half the crap you do without putting your name on it.
Stick around Newbie….
I am more willing than most to admit when I’m wrong. Ask Vern or Greg. I’ve apologized to both of them, when they’ve proven me wrong.
You’re not in that club yet, but it’s possible.
My career does not allow me to post my name. I’m a capitalist to the bone, and will do nothing to diminish my competitive edge. I have no idea if any of my clients (who might remain anonymous) read this blog.
Yes, liberals can be driven by their businesses. I’m one of them.
IMO In your short time here, you’ve posted more CRAP than I have.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear that over the sound of you flushing another post. Wipe and try again later.
We all know that your strong suit is cartoons and children’s diapers, with your references to your favorite movies “The Little Mermaid” and “Toy Story” and whatever other juvenile crap that you design your life around.
So…”Wipe and try again later” may be your reality, but it doesn’t have much to do with the rest of us.
The grownups are talking about gun control. Got anything intelligent to add?
Well, I was able to glean that he thinks cops should be subject to the same gun regulations as civilians.
I’ll leave it to others to determine if that’s intelligent.
Oh, GUN CONTROL. I see.
I thought the adults were using their real names. My bad.
Yes, Anon. That’s what I’m saying. Argument against?
I don’t think Boutwell uses his real name. If he does that’s a pretty cool handle he has.
So then you have to discredit everything that he says?
I find his ANONYMOUS postings to be quite intelligent and informative. I’m sure that he has his reasons to not to post his name, and he does act like an adult.
I think anonymous contributors can add value to a site. You want to add value without attaching your name? Be my guest.
I think anonymous contributors who are more interested in character assassination than an exchange of ideas ought to called out for their shenanigans. You want to sling mud without a name? Come on, even Stanley has the decency to own his comments.
Don’t hide behind Boutwell, who has shown you way more patience than you deserve. When Boutwell attempts to attack your character, which will never happen, you can come back at me with this comment.
I agree that Boutwell certainly behaves like an adult. If we had a congeniality award, Boutwell would win in a landslide.
Mr. Cantor, I think I alluded below to a sensible reason why cops may need more firepower than civilians. You know, the odds they face and all that.
I don’t find that having cops who abuse their authority to be a compelling reason for leveling the firepower playing field.
What odds can’t be addressed with 10 .45 rounds, 8 shotgun shells, 6 rounds of 30-06, and 15 of your buddies?
Seriously– I don’t know. I’m up for the question.
It seems to me that we get substantial buy in by stating there’s no such thing as second class citizens when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Some of us are not more equal than others based on being an agent of the state.
So what’s the real qualification you’re assigning to fire power?
Is it exercising one’s duty assigned by the people as an agent of the state?
Is it hazard of the occupation?
Is it competency of the user?
At best, I can see an argument for an on-duty officer in uniform to possibly need access to military equipment . . . but that’s a real stretch outside of a SWAT team.
I see no reason why an agent of the state should have a greater standing with regard to the 2nd Amendment at home than any other citizen. I see some value on assignment, but I see greater value in demonstrating consistency with the application of the Constitution.
Some American soldiers abuse their authority. Does it follow that we should constrain their weaponry to match that of the enemy?
No.
It follows that they should be in jail.
It might follow that some soldiers shouldn’t be used as police in overseas countries.
Fine. Then when a cop abuses his/her authority, all means to bring him/her to justice should be exercised.
And I understand that can be difficult, at times. It’s the same for American soldiers.
It’s entirely legitimate to demand the full weight of justice for those in authority who abuse the power citizens invest them with.
BOOYAH! Sweet agreement.
What strikes me is your apparent willingness to stress the imperfections of the police, while not also stressing the imperfections of civilians with guns.
Are the police MORE imperfect than civilians?
Cops, not to mention other civilians, are ALSO being killed by imperfect civilians with guns.
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
By far . . . BY FAR . .. there are more bad people in the world without a badge than with one.
There you go. Happy?
That said, I believe it’s perfectly fair to hold LEOs to a higher standard than Joe Public. They’re supposed to be better than most of us.
It’s always more public and more intense when a hero falls. Many girls and boys want to be cops for a reason.
“By far . . . BY FAR . .. there are more bad people in the world without a badge than with one.”
And so I, along with Demo, am perfectly comfortable with cops having more firepower than civilians.
The vast majority of cops ARE better than most of us at law enforcement.
Great, then they should have no problem getting the job done with 10 rounds.
So you know better how many rounds it takes to get a particular law enforcement job done?
I know that it’s not safe for me to have a firearm with more than ten. Diane Feinstein says so.
What’s good for the goose . . .
Since there is no possibility to have a discussion with an evil Jew I will no longer answer any of you questions.
Whether or not you will print my comments will depend on your Jewish deceptive choice.
I’m happy to let people see this one. (Apologies to my fellow members of the tribe who may be offended. Consider the source.)
I’m all for having this bigot permanently banned. Anyone else with me?
I think that he’s a vile man that is a stain on the immigrants who come to this country, and add to our culture. He is an embarrassment.
He hates…. Jews, liberals, other immigrants, the government, women, and logic.
“He hates…. Jews, liberals, other immigrants, the government, women, and logic”……….. Hmmmmmmm
As the Jew stated above: I have a choice? How wonderful!
Do you think that I should print the one that he just submitted?
Vern would have to be the one to ban people entirely, not me. (I guess that I probably could, I just don’t think that it’s my call.)
No.
Second.
I’m sure that as a fellow Jew, you’re insulted by Stanislaw’s commentary. Do you feel injured, though? I’m weighing letting people see where he’s really coming from versus avoiding the pain that some people may feel from doing so.
I get this a lot. Seriously.
For the record, I was raised a Catholic. Not that my grandfather’s religion being assigned to me is in any way a bad thing.
I’m insulted by his commentary as a human being.
That said, maybe we don’t want him going all North Korea on us if we isolate him too much.
Sorry for the mistake. You should feel good about not having as many genetic diseases, though! (I kid! I kid!)
I leave such decisions to the boss. Right now, in unpublished comments, Stanislaw is threatening to sue the blog for something or other. I can’t tell where the satire ends and the schizophrenia* begins.
*(Not an actual diagnosis or assertion of fact.)
Is he claiming to be Jewish?
I have no idea, but I think he was “ventriloquizing” an imagined version of you.
Send me the summons so I can submit my injury in counter claim.
I hope that Orange Juice Blog is insured.
*(Not an actual diagnosis or assertion of fact.)……. Hmmmmmm
Your disclaimers will not help you Esq. in the context of your claim.
send me summons coward.
Summons for what? You can’t be sued for general verbal professions of anti-Semitism. The proof is that you’re not locked up somewhere.
That makes much more sense.
As there are no formal “rules of conduct”, I would not ban him. It is interesting to know his perspective. Although most of his statements are obnoxious, sometimes he makes reasonable contributions to the debate. The current editorial practice, of deleting his extreme outrageous offensive and inappropiate statements, works well.
Thanks but no thanks!
I am just waiting for coward Esq. Diamond to send me the summons.
A couple of weeks ago I recommended to Greg and Vern that that weasle fiala be permanetly banned for a similar anti-semitic comment.
“For the record, I was raised a Catholic. Not that my grandfather’s religion being assigned to me is in any way a bad thing.”…………. Hmmmmmm
Since I am a Jew myself I can’t be anti Jew!
However, I can detect fucking assholes in my tribe…… Diamond is one of them ridiculed virtually everyone in the blog sphere.
Bring it on Esq. Diamond, I have the webpage ready http://diamond-vs-fiala.ocsatire.com/
I second Ricardo’s motion. Do not ban Stanley.
What the world needs now is less Jewish NWO politically correct censorship and politically correct infringing on the American Bill of Rights.
Be more politically incorrect like Jew/Catholic Bill Maher. That guy has got it going on.
You know who else has got it going on?
Naomi Wolf
A Liberal feminist who understands the value of our second amendment and also knows how to explain the 10 easy steps where in Democracy is converted to Fascism.
“What the world needs now is less Jewish NWO politically correct censorship and politically correct infringing on the American Bill of Rights.”
Wow. Personally, I think that what the world needs now is fewer asshole bigots.
If you were trying to offer a critique of Israeli policy, of unquestioning US support for Israel, etc., I’d likely agree with much of it — well, if it came from someone not disposed towards conspiracy theory as you are. But this isn’t about the Middle East, it’s about Jews like me supposedly trying to take away guns and oppress others. That’s bigotry. You just made Stanley very happy — I won’t give a grotesque description of it — and I hope that he contacts you, his new ally.
I know that “NWO” stands for “New World Order,” so I decided to see if “Jewish NWO” was a vogue phrase or just something you made up. Here’s what I found through Google (no links, just search result headlines and occasionally a snippet, because I’m not linking to this stuff):
“3 Goals Of The New World Order Jews | Real Jew News”
“Down with the Jewish NWO – YouTube”
“London to Remove ‘Anti-Semitic’ Mural Showing … – Before It’s News
Feb 2, 2013 – (Before It’s News). London to remove ‘anti-Semitic’ mural showing Jewish NWO bankers. The council of the London borough of Tower Hamlets …”
“Rabbi Marvin Antleman–Father of Jewish NWO Study”
“Putin is Jewish Pawn, says Russian Patriot – henrymakow.com
Jan 3, 2013 – Tamara: “The photo at bottom left shows Opposition to Putin saying Putin is 100% a Jew ( his mother is a Jew and his father is a Jew). In Russia …”
“THE JEWISH NWO IS UPON IS ALL AND lTS OVER SOON – Topix”
“View topic – Jack Otto, Ron Paul, Conspiracy and the Jewish NWO …”
“AMERICAN HOLOCAUST and The Coming NEW WORLD ORDER …”
“Jewish-NWO-conspiracy | Flickr – Photo Sharing!”
I think I’ll stop there, but Google says that there’s 4700 in total. (Now 4701, I guess, thanks to you.) That’s your peer group now. Beware, they don’t like Mexicans (or even half-Mexicans) either.
I hadn’t expected this of you, but I suppose that that was my mistake. Have fun playing with Stanislaw. Anyone else here want to come out of this particular closet?
Not a bigot Greg.
I personally believe that Jewish culture and people of that faith are responsible for all kinds of fantastic things in this world.
For example, all of the time and effort that you for example put into this open public political blog for the sake of a better more open society.
kind of like George Soros!
Do you think that I am being sarcastic? I am not.
I appreciate a lot of the great things that Jews have done within American culture and I also have the right to critique what many people of that persuasion are doing within American politics and World politics.
I am NOT a BIGOT. Greg.
You have in mind something you and others call the “Jewish NWO” (“New World Order”). Not just a “new world order” — a term that both Hitler and one of the Presidents Bush employed — but a particular Jewish one. If you meant support for Israel, then I’d have to admit that a lot of Jews (though not necessarily a majority) feel strongly about that, be they write or wrong, and a lot of politicians cater to their preferences. But you don’t: you talk about “Jewish NWO” being “politically correct censorship and politically correct infringing on the American Bill of Rights.” This racially-based conspiracy about a minority group trying to impede your rights puts you in some longstanding and vile company; maybe you’re heard the phrase “Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools.”
Your expressed concern above is what “people of that persuasion are doing within American politics and World politics.” Really? It bothers you more if Jews are doing something you dislike in politics than if other people are doing that thing? Why is that?
If you had just described what you dislike as a “New World Order of politically correct censorship …” etc. then I would have either considered it on its merits or brushed it off with an eye-roll (having considered it on its merits already.) But you didn’t — you racialized the attack. You can search your own soul as to why you did so and how that fits with your self-perception as “NOT a BIGOT.”
You might start by asking yourself what if anything you think is wrong with Fiala’s commentaries on Jews.
I presume that there is probably some analogy to anti-Latino bigotry that might get the point across to you, but I’m not going to go looking for it — because I don’t particularly want to find it, and if I found it, I don’t particularly want to publish it.
Greg, in my opinion,
the NWO is definitely not an exclusive Jewish conspiracy or motivation. That should be somewhat obvious. But for certain reasons most Jewish politicians or Jewish funded politicians and Jewish media members (but certainly not all) do not like to focus any spotlight on NWO “conspiracy” reality at all. Even though we can clearly see it unfolding before our eyes.
Also,I do not regard Judaism or Jewishness as a race. There are many ethnic varieties that comprise the cultural “Jews” and practice Judasm.
I am not big on the “race” concept at all.
I am a bigot for thinking that? I don’t think so.
Helen Thomas and others shared a similar belief.
She thought that much of modern day Israel was comprised of ethnic Germans and Polls and not ethnically pure “Jews”.
I do have issues with Judaism as a religion. I have issues with Christianity as a religion also. I do not have enough knowledge or interest or exposure to Islam to create much of an opinion about it. Most of the people causing political mischief and social disparity in the good ol’ USA are politically ambitious and selfish “Christians” and “Jews”.
It appears to me that Christians are more Nationalistic on average.
and Jews are more anti-Nationalistic on average. Both groups have traditionally supported much Zionism. These are all rationally constructed stereotypes.
The “NWO” is definitely not exclusively Jewish? Gosh — THANKS for saying so! What a relief!
You do, however, refer to it — and I refer to the hate sites for people who want to know what “it” is — as the “Jewish NWO,” so perhaps how I construed your piece will be understandable.
Jews refer to ourselves in prayers as a “people”; “tribe” is actually a pretty good translation of that. If you’d prefer to be called a bigot rather than a racist, I’ll try to be more specific in the future. Yes, many of us will share the ancestry of the peoples in the places to which we were exiled or otherwise dispersed; yet there remains a large enough core among great swaths of the population that, as Fiala can tell you, we even have 35 genetic disorders to which we are more susceptible. No one argues that we’re a single ethnicity, but merely that our “tribal” affiliation leads us to, for most purposes, function as one within the U.S. context. (Similarly, African-Americans, who are from all over the continent mixed with almost everything else, are not actually a “race” or “ethnicity” but tend to be treated as such — and when we’re talking about social constructs, that’s enough.
To the extent that Jews are less likely to think that Sandy Hook was faked, that Christopher Dorner wasn’t Christopher Dorner, and whatever other crap you seem to mix together as part of the “NWO,” I’m not particularly displeased by that.
By the way — with how much of what you wrote do you think Stanislaw would disagree? Does that bother you at all?
Greg, I want to make this very clear.
I do not care much for “Jews”.
I do not care much for Christians or any religious people that can not take responsibility for their own moral choices in the world.
I consider you an Occupy Brother First.
That is why I spend time socializing with you.
All of my best friends are Occupy Brothers and Sisters.
I would estimate that about a third of them have Jewish connections.
I respect them and they respect me despite the fact that I critique religious affiliations and religious themed action.
We will work this out. I am sure.
I toss around suspicions about Dorner and other recent events mostly for conversation sake and to get people talking about how little they actual know about these real time scenarios and police reports, media stories etc.
As for Sandy Hook though, I am fairly convinced that the truth had been suppressed by the media and probably with the government’s help.
I do not think the whole thing was fake, i think certain aspects of it were.
There was probably as much dishonesty (or magical incompetence?) done by the media reporting as there was in the actual shooting scenario.
I’m going to keep putting in a lot of time investigating the current “NWO”.
and I look forward to sharing it.
just don’t be sayin’ “Jewish this” and “Jewish that” – too much dark history involved in people saying that!
We love you though – our favorite conspiracy-following Occupying Artist!
Yes, I know that you love me Vern and your Jewish buddy Greg.
He loves me too.
Viva Occupy.