Another school shooting

[Bob Juch]

A student at Northern Arizona University shot four others at 1:20 this morning. One has died. The shooter has surrendered to the police.

[flockofseagulls104]

We need to politicize this. We need a common sense nationwide curfew at 12 midnight. That will stop these after midnight school shootings.

Sorry to be sarcastic about this, but trying to point out how inappropriate and out of control our current Cheif Executive is.

[silverscreenselect]

Sorry to be sarcastic about this, but trying to point out how inappropriate and out of control our current Cheif Executive is.

As opposed to all the voices of restraint and moderation we've heard from the Republican party on every issue other than gun control.

[Bob78164]

And another at Texas Southern University. The campus is on lockdown.

I'm still waiting for one of these shootings to be prevented by a posse of armed citizens who carefully disable or kill the shooter without also killing or wounding a whole bunch of bystanders. Isn't that what widespread availability of guns is supposed to accomplish? Because facts, stubborn things that they are, don't seem to be supporting the theory. --Bob

[Bob78164]

We need to politicize this.

Yes, we do. Government's basic job is to keep its citizens safe. It's failing. That's as political an issue as there is. --Bob

[Bob78164]

This one wasn't at a college. To my mind it's even worse. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

And another at Texas Southern University. The campus is on lockdown.

I'm still waiting for one of these shootings to be prevented by a posse of armed citizens who carefully disable or kill the shooter without also killing or wounding a whole bunch of bystanders. Isn't that what widespread availability of guns is supposed to accomplish? Because facts, stubborn things that they are, don't seem to be supporting the theory. --Bob

The Arizona shooting appears to be related to a fraternity dispute; the Texas shooting occurred at a student housing complex.

Bob, you don't understand that it's only the handful of irresponsible drunk, pot smoking, reckless, immature hotheads on our college campuses who carry guns now. If we pump thousands of more guns on college campuses, they will only be carried and used responsibly with great restraint by mature, sensible, law abiding, sober college students who will be easily able to stop those hotheads.

[Beebs52]

Please tell me how we're going to monitor crazy people? No one is monitoring the hundreds of gang purchased guns. I'm not being sarcastic. Divesting your basic hunter person of a gun isn't going to stop this. At what point will you okay thought police? Or how many layers of universal checking or whatever is enough? Gunfree zones don't help.

It is a mess.

[Beebs52]

And another at Texas Southern University. The campus is on lockdown.

I'm still waiting for one of these shootings to be prevented by a posse of armed citizens who carefully disable or kill the shooter without also killing or wounding a whole bunch of bystanders. Isn't that what widespread availability of guns is supposed to accomplish? Because facts, stubborn things that they are, don't seem to be supporting the theory. --Bob

The Arizona shooting appears to be related to a fraternity dispute; the Texas shooting occurred at a student housing complex.

Bob, you don't understand that it's only the handful of irresponsible drunk, pot smoking, reckless, immature hotheads on our college campuses who carry guns now. If we pump thousands of more guns on college campuses, they will only be carried and used responsibly with great restraint by mature, sensible, law abiding, sober college students who will be easily able to stop those hotheads.

Would you like to address the daily driveby shootings we're privileged to hear about on our nightly news in a Houston? All that sort of thing amasses more dead bodies than the high profile weird incidences. Not caused by college students either.

[Bob Juch]

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — A Northern Arizona University freshman told police he was hit in the face during a late night confrontation and then tried to render first aid after he opened fire on four fraternity members, killing one and wounding three, according to court documents released Friday.

Steven Jones, 18, was found alongside the four victims in a campus parking lot Friday shortly after the 1:20 a.m. shootings. Jones told a responding campus police officer that he had opened fire, the arrest report said.

Jones told investigators that several people approached him and two friends while they were outside a residence. A fight broke out between the two groups, and Jones said he was hit in the face. According to the suspect, a group came out of the house and chased him. He ran to his car and retrieved a handgun. Two of the victims had stopped following him but turned around when he yelled that he had a gun. Jones said he shot them both but then tried to help one of them.

A friend of Jones said the first victim asked Jones why he brought a gun before the suspect shot him multiple times, police said. The second victim was shot after taking a step in Jones' direction, according to the witness. Both were standing no more than 10 feet away.

A group tried to subdue Jones, who fired a shot in the air. Jones said he then dropped his firearm, which had a flashlight attached to it.

University police chief Gregory T. Fowler identified Jones as the shooter and said he used a handgun in the 1:20 a.m. shootings.

Jones was booked Friday for one count of first-degree homicide and three counts of aggravated assault.

The victims were all members of the Delta Chi fraternity, the organization said in a statement. The university identified the student who died as Colin Brough. The victims being treated at Flagstaff Medical Center are Nicholas Prato, Kyle Zientek and Nicholas Piring. The hospital said it couldn't release any information on conditions.

"This is not going to be a normal day at NAU," said school President Rita Cheng. "Our hearts are heavy."

She called it an isolated and unprecedented incident and said classes would go on as scheduled Friday.

The parking lot where the shooting happened is just outside Mountain View Hall dormitory on the Flagstaff campus, which provides housing for many of the campus' sororities and fraternities. The gate to the dorm's main entrance was closed Friday, and police had the surrounding area taped off.

Brough was from Castle Rock, Colorado, about 30 miles south of downtown Denver. He loved to play lacrosse and wanted to be successful so he could help other people, said his cousin, Ryan Jernegan of Woodbury, New Jersey.

"He was the happiest person that you probably would ever meet," Jernegan said.

He worked as a cashier at the Puma outlet store in Castle Rock during the summer after graduating high school. Manager Chauncey Musser remembered him as an outgoing employee with a seemingly bottomless supply of energy.

Alex McIntosh, a friend of Zientek, said he worked part time at the High Country Conference Center while attending school full time.

"He's very calm, very respectful, has a great manner, calm demeanor and you'd never expect him to be caught up in something like this," McIntosh said.

Student Maria Gonzalez told The Associated Press that she at first suspected firecrackers when the shooting happened.

"I was studying for an exam, so I looked out the window and see two people running, and that's when I realized they weren't fireworks, they were actually gunshots," she said.

The Flagstaff shooting comes on the same day that President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Roseburg, Oregon, where eight students and a teacher were shot and killed last week at Umpqua Community College. The gunman in the Oregon shooting wounded nine others before turning the gun on himself.

NAU is a four-year public university that has more than 25,000 total undergraduate students at the campus in Flagstaff, a city about two hours north of Phoenix that is surrounded by mountains and ponderosa pines. The city of 70,000 people has a reputation for being a safe place and typically records only one murder per year.

"It's crazy. You don't think this stuff happens. When I think of Flagstaff, I think safety," said freshman Cameron Sands, who had pledged at a fraternity and was supposed to move into Mountain View Hall on Friday.

[flockofseagulls104]

We need to politicize this.

Yes, we do. Government's basic job is to keep its citizens safe. It's failing. That's as political an issue as there is. --Bob

Yes Bob. And you know what? Heroin is illegal. Meth is illegal. There are all kinds of "common sense" laws against making these things, selling them and using them. When these Common sense laws succeed in stopping all abuse of these drugs, let's talk about "Common Sense" gun control laws, which, if it's on the Federal level, would necessarily start with a Constitutional Amendment that would supersede the 2nd amendment.

The government is not going to keep the public safe by more laws. There are already laws against murdering people no matter what the means. And no gun law in existence or being proposed would have made any difference in most of these shootings. It's exactly what Obama is calling it. Politicizing it. Not solving any problem or protecting anyone. Just using these incidents as a political tool to outrage the ignorant and under informed. I think it's disgusting.

[flockofseagulls104]

And another at Texas Southern University. The campus is on lockdown.

I'm still waiting for one of these shootings to be prevented by a posse of armed citizens who carefully disable or kill the shooter without also killing or wounding a whole bunch of bystanders. Isn't that what widespread availability of guns is supposed to accomplish? Because facts, stubborn things that they are, don't seem to be supporting the theory. --Bob

The theory is skewed by another wonderful idea. The gunfree zone. Where else would I go if I wanted to kill the maximum number of defenseless human beings?

Why do you assume the average lawful gun owner is either a redneck yahoo or a bumbling idiot?

[Bob78164]

And another at Texas Southern University. The campus is on lockdown.

I'm still waiting for one of these shootings to be prevented by a posse of armed citizens who carefully disable or kill the shooter without also killing or wounding a whole bunch of bystanders. Isn't that what widespread availability of guns is supposed to accomplish? Because facts, stubborn things that they are, don't seem to be supporting the theory. --Bob

The theory is skewed by another wonderful idea. The gunfree zone. Where else would I go if I wanted to kill the maximum number of defenseless human beings?

Why do you assume the average lawful gun owner is either a redneck yahoo or a bumbling idiot?

I don't. But if possession of a gun within city limits, or outside a designated hunting zone (or shooting range) were illegal, with all such guns subject to summary seizure and destruction, there would eventually be a lot fewer guns floating around.

Where is your actual evidence that having lots of guns around makes defenseless human beings safer? Because the experience of lots of other countries is pretty powerful evidence that you're wrong about that.

The primary theory I've heard is that we need to allow relatively unrestricted gun possession to permit citizens to defend themselves from government run rampant. Kind of like David Koresh and his followers needed to defend themselves from the ATF. That theory is, of course, nonsense, as the experience of the Warsaw Ghetto (among others) teaches us. An untrained citizenry has no real chance against a trained military that is willing to follow orders to turn their weapons on their own citizens. Our best defense against that outcome is a body politic that is outraged by U.S. armed forces firing on our own citizens, as happened at Kent State.

Note also the experience of countries like the Phillippines, where the authoritarian Marcos government was overthrown, not by force of arms, but by the People Power revolution. Note the experience of Flight 93, where unarmed passengers defeated armed terrorists. Note the experience of Oregon, where an unarmed hero prevented many more casualties. Compare these experiences to the number of people casually killed by gunfire. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Why don't y'all talk about the gang guns?

[silverscreenselect]

The government is not going to keep the public safe by more laws. There are already laws against murdering people no matter what the means. And no gun law in existence or being proposed would have made any difference in most of these shootings.

The government won't keep the public safe by more laws. The government can keep the public safer. A good example is mandatory seat belt laws. Even with these laws, not everyone wears seat belts, but a higher percentage do than in states that don't have those laws and traffic deaths are down as well. The last time we had a significant piece of federal gun control legislation was the Brady bill and it has blocked literally millions of gun sales to felons and other dangerous individuals. Yes, a lot of them do get guns in other ways, but all of them don't, and closing a lot of other loopholes and having a federal gun registry would help, but we won't do that because the NRA has a hissy fit about it.

[flockofseagulls104]

But if possession of a gun within city limits, or outside a designated hunting zone (or shooting range) were illegal, with all such guns subject to summary seizure and destruction, there would eventually be a lot fewer guns floating around.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that criminals by definition don't abide by the law? Don't you understand there is a thing called the 'black market' that is not subject to the regulations of the day? There will always be guns around for people who want them. Why do you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens only? Yeah, maybe there will be fewer guns, but not for criminals, only for law abiding citizens. Why is your laser focus on guns?

The Boston bombers used pressure cookers and killed many people BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE. All these school shooters killed many people, not because they had guns, but BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO KILL PEOPLE. The guns didn't do it. The gun law charade is a political game that's been played since I was a youngster.

And SSS, people who actually think for themselves are so tired of the NRA mantra. How many liberal organizations and individuals (Bloomberg for one) spend money and propagandize and lie through their teeth advocating for gun laws without being demonized by people like you?

[Bob78164]

But if possession of a gun within city limits, or outside a designated hunting zone (or shooting range) were illegal, with all such guns subject to summary seizure and destruction, there would eventually be a lot fewer guns floating around.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that criminals by definition don't abide by the law? Don't you understand there is a thing called the 'black market' that is not subject to the regulations of the day? There will always be guns around for people who want them. Why do you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens only? Yeah, maybe there will be fewer guns, but not for criminals, only for law abiding citizens. Why is your laser focus on guns?

Because the evidence of other countries tells us that restricting the easy availability of firearms works. All you have is theory that doesn't accord with the evidence. When that happens, it's time to throw out the theory and try another one. Ideologues and zealots don't understand that, but everyone else does. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that criminals by definition don't abide by the law? Don't you understand there is a thing called the 'black market' that is not subject to the regulations of the day? There will always be guns around for people who want them. Why do you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens only? Yeah, maybe there will be fewer guns, but not for criminals, only for law abiding citizens. Why is your laser focus on guns?

And why is it so difficult for you to understand that criminals are lazy and stupid, not all of them, but a heck of a lot of them. Make it more difficult for them to get guns and a lot more of them won't have guns, not because they don't want to, but because it's tougher and more expensive to do so. There will always be a black market, but many of the loopholes that gun control advocates are trying to close will make it more difficult for black marketeers to obtain guns (and more risky since the chances of their being busted because a customer rats on them go up considerably), all of which makes the illegal guns more expensive.

And while we're at it, a lot of gun deaths result from sales to "law abiding citizens." Those children who are shooting each other aren't going to pawn shops and gun shows or wandering the streets of their home town looking for black market dealers. They get guns because their "law abiding" parents bought them for protection and now have to live with the fact that their children have used them.

In my own situation, I'm much more worried that Mrs. SSS or myself will get shot one of these New Year's Eves by one of our "law abiding" neighbors than I am that a criminal is going to break into my home and assault us or kill us as part of an armed robbery (something I've already lived through).

[BackInTex]

I'm much more worried that Mrs. SSS or myself will get shot one of these New Year's Eves by one of our "law abiding" neighbors than I am that a criminal is going to break into my home and assault us or kill us as part of an armed robbery (something I've already lived through).

If you die this year at other than by your own intentional hand, you have a 0.46% chance of being killed by a firearm. And that does not account for those that put themselves in harms way (i.e. drugs, gangs, or other criminal activity). I don't know your lifestyle, but will wager your chances are actually much less than that. And this is for the year you die. Not an active everyday probability.

You worry too much.

Of the 60-80 million gun owners in the US, you probably need to concern yourself with only 10-15,000 or 0.02% of us.

Cigarettes kills more people. But cigarettes won't protect you from criminals or tyranny.
Alcohol kills more people. Bug alcohol won't protect you from criminals or tyranny.

Probably why the 2nd amendment doesn't include the right to smoke or drink.

[ten96lt]

The question of who had a gun to defend a classroom instantly struck one teacher when gunshots rang out on campus on Thursday.

"When I got into the room that was locked down, one of the professors asked if anyone was concealed carry," said student John Parker, an Air Force veteran, who had a gun on his hip.

"I raised my hand and said: 'Don't worry, nobody is coming through that door.'"

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Oregon ... s-20151005

Gee, I guess that professor finally realized when it finally hit the fan that it was going to take a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun. Yet there's people that would rather prevent them from carrying and make it a "gun free zone". Here's my proposal, every place that's declared a "soft target" by legislation/admin rule/etc. (Schools, Malls, Stadiums, etc) must have sufficient armed security that can rapidly respond to an active shooter or must allow people to CCW if they refuse to pay for the security.

If you think the police are the end all solution sharpshooters that can take down an active shooter, first off, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Second, ask your average cop how often they actually shoot their gun to practice candidly and you'll see they're likely no better of a shot than your average amateur gun owner. Most from experience say that they only shoot once a year when they have to requalify, which is terrible considering target shooting is a skill you have to practice at to maintain it. I'd trust a CCW person more taking a shot since they likely practice with it more than an average cop.

[silverscreenselect]

Gee, I guess that professor finally realized when it finally hit the fan that it was going to take a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun. Yet there's people that would rather prevent them from carrying and make it a "gun free zone".

That's great unless and until that "good guy with a gun" decides he's mad at his professor or his girl friend or someone who disrespected him or despondent about his life in general or just happens to be drunk or high and not thinking straight and now he's got the gun. In which case what we need is a second good guy with a gun to stop the first guy who used to be good. And then we need the third good guy with a gun to stop the first two guys. Or maybe we get lucky and the "good guy with a gun" only takes a shot at a "someone who looks like a bad guy with a gun but was just pulling out a flashlight."

Put more guns on college campuses and you're going to get more situations like Northern Arizona and Texas Southern.

[BackInTex]

That's great unless and until that "good guy with a gun" decides he's mad at his professor or his girl friend or someone who disrespected him or despondent about his life in general or just happens to be drunk or high and not thinking straight and now he's got the gun.

Good guys have guns now. Good guys get mad at folks. Doesn't mean they shoot them. They don't. Bad guys do. Allowing a good guy to have a gun does not turn him into a bad buy.

Nothing is changing except good guys can now shoot back if shot at.

[silverscreenselect]

Allowing a good guy to have a gun does not turn him into a bad buy.

Allowing a good guy with poor judgment or anger management issues or drug or alcohol problems or carelessness or stupidity to carry a gun around gives him a needless chance to turn into a bad guy.

Two drunk idiots without guns who get into the typical type of stupid argument that happens at colleges end up with a few punches being thrown. Two drunk idiots with guns in the same situation end up with bullets flying around. Ask the people at Northern Arizona and Texas Southern.

And the idiots don't always just shoot each other. If one of your daughters happened to be in range of one of those idiots acting stupidly, you might rethink your position.

[flockofseagulls104]

Allowing a good guy to have a gun does not turn him into a bad buy.

Allowing a good guy with poor judgment or anger management issues or drug or alcohol problems or carelessness or stupidity to carry a gun around gives him a needless chance to turn into a bad guy.

Two drunk idiots without guns who get into the typical type of stupid argument that happens at colleges end up with a few punches being thrown. Two drunk idiots with guns in the same situation end up with bullets flying around. Ask the people at Northern Arizona and Texas Southern.

And the idiots don't always just shoot each other. If one of your daughters happened to be in range of one of those idiots acting stupidly, you might rethink your position.

It seems like everyone who owns a gun is a stupid, drunk idiot to you. I don't know the exact number, but would it be fair to say that about 80 million people who own guns didn't get drunk and shoot someone last year?

So, how about when you achieve your goal of outlawing guns despite the 2nd amendment. Who will have guns? The average criminal is too stupid and lazy to get one, right? (You are just so full of stereotypes, SSS. Just sayin....).

What about the guy who sells drugs? I think he'd probably have enough cash to get an illegal gun for him/her self and all the goons that work for him. What about the neighborhood gangs. They ain't the Jets and Sharks anymore. They'll get them. I would think anyone who makes a decent living from breaking the law would have an incentive to own one or more, whether they're legal or not.

Take away the guns from SSS's drunk idiots and the only ones who will have them are the professional criminals. Sometimes I think that's really what the gun control lobby wants. They never address the hypocrisy and contradictions of their positions. They rely on emotional arguments and demonization.

[ten96lt]

Gee, I guess that professor finally realized when it finally hit the fan that it was going to take a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun. Yet there's people that would rather prevent them from carrying and make it a "gun free zone".

That's great unless and until that "good guy with a gun" decides he's mad at his professor or his girl friend or someone who disrespected him or despondent about his life in general or just happens to be drunk or high and not thinking straight and now he's got the gun. In which case what we need is a second good guy with a gun to stop the first guy who used to be good. And then we need the third good guy with a gun to stop the first two guys. Or maybe we get lucky and the "good guy with a gun" only takes a shot at a "someone who looks like a bad guy with a gun but was just pulling out a flashlight."

Put more guns on college campuses and you're going to get more situations like Northern Arizona and Texas Southern.

The same thing could happen with a cop with a family member, co-worker, or joe schmoe on the street; but we don't see them prevented from carrying off duty or at home. You're justifying your irrational fears by using stretched hypotheticals and generalizing a group of people (CCW holders) despite the lack of evidence of widespread phenomenon in this group you use to theorize.

I'm more worried about a drunk idiot getting behind the wheel of a car as I'm driving than I am of one picking up a gun as I'm walking down the street. I am also more worried about getting mugged or robbed as I'm walking down the street than running into a confrontation with Joe Schmoe as I have learned to avoid conflict and not to escalate a situation. However, your hypos do not address what to do about the people that do want to mug/rob me.