Multiple sources report yet more carnage by yet another shooter with assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, this time at Santa Monica College in Santa Monica, CA.
Four people were killed and five wounded on Friday morning as a gunman, dressed in black and carrying an assault rifle, strode across Santa Monica firing at people, cars, a public bus and buildings before being shot and killed by the police at the Santa Monica College Library, the authorities said.
How much blood must run in our streets before we do anything? How many children must die (every victim is somebody’s child)?
We must find a way to ratchet up the heat on the NRA and on the corrupt politicians who do its bidding. Now.
Update, June 10, 2013
According to a story in this morning’s Globe, the death toll of this latest murder rampage has increased from four to five:
Also Sunday, a woman who was critically wounded in the shooting died. Marcela Franco, 26, had been a passenger in a Ford Explorer driven by her father, campus groundskeeper Carlos Navarro Franco, 68, who also was killed in Friday’s attack.
They were going to the school to buy textbooks for classes the young woman was enrolled in for the summer, president Chui L. Tsang said in a statement posted on the college’s website.
Police identified the shooter as John Zawahri, age 23.
Marcela and Carlos Navarro Franco, victims of the latest massacre.
“The gunman accused of killing four people in a Santa Monica shooting rampage Friday was apparently angry over his parents’ divorce and had some mental health issues in the past, a law enforcement source told The Times.”
Tom, check and see if he was a member of The Tea Party, and try that angle.
Now, Here is a typical gun story, never before on BMG. John Wolf was out for a walk and a scumbag put a gun to his neck.
“Unbeknownst to the robber, Wolf had his own .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistol hidden under a loose hanging shirt. Soon enough, though, the same man sneaked behind Wolf and stuck a .38 caliber revolver into his neck. “He must have told me he was going to kill me 10 times,” said Wolf, 59. Wolf fired a “wall of bullets” at the robber, who fled, then fell to the ground, and, well, let’s say, the robber will never hurt a fly, again.
Now this is a wonderful story, and many more like it, especially women defending themselves during a home invasion or abusive boyfriends.
Now, it’s time for me to take my daily morning walk. Remember, an armed society is a polite society…….
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shootings-echo-for-the-few-who-have-fired-guns-in/article_458e75bf-1362-5f83-be12-896d02849a99.html
…AND ACCESS TO A GUN! Not a good combination which is exactly the point.
I can’t imagine how the example above worked unless the attacker was completely incompetant. If I already have a gun at my neck how in the world do I reach for one I’m carrying without being shot in the process? The scenario would be a lot better if it hadn’t happened in the first place since it wouldn’t happen if there were no guns, most civilized societies to begin with.
But don’t take it out on law-abiding, tax paying, fully functioning Americans, that’s my point. Mr. Wolf saved himself, with a semi-automatic pistol, likely a protection you and many here would like to take away from him. And to say society would be better if there were no guns, is silliness. They did that in England, and rape and burglary rates have gone through the roof. I will take my chances, thank you very much.
If you really want to ban semi-automatic weapons, then your side must give up something. I would propose a ban on future semi-automatic rifles, in exchange, states like Illinois, cities like NYC, and even in MA, people who have taken the necessary training courses, have an absolute right to conceal-carry firearm. No more leaving it up to a police chief, or outright bans. Unles you come to the table with something, expect nothing, besides a political talking point “I want to make the NRA irrelevant” as Mr. Markey said recently. I, personally, would like to make the Nanny State, irrelevant, and not let people feel helpless, waiting for the calvary to arrive, after the crime has been committed, and all what’s left is are chalk lines of the victims.
The UK, the rest of Europe, and Australia all have many fewer guns and many fewer gun crimes.
United Kingdom = 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people, USA 466 violent crimes per 100,000. And this stat is a best case scenario for England. So it is not 5X higher, just 2X (approx).
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
…this and this which appear to contradict, at least in terms of gun crimes. In both sources all the comparable nations have significantly fewer crimes and those worse off are consistently those that are often categorized as developing.
Although, the stats you cited likely include self defense, where the good guy killed a bad guy, my article about Mr. Wolf, killing his would-be killer, is considered gun violence. Also, police killing a suspect, would be in the stats.
What you need to look at are rapes and home invasions. There, the U.K. is much higher. You think the terrorists in England would have hacked to death a soldier, with a meat cleaver, if the soldier was allowed to conceal-carry? You see the video of the terrorist with his bloody hands, talking into the camera of the stranger? I don’t want a camera of a “mentally disturbed” person, with bloody hands, walks up to me and my family.
I bet Christopher, if you look at the gun violence in America, you will find most of it in cities with the strictest gun laws. Perhaps there is another reason, besides guns, why people act in violent ways.
Thanks for the civil conversation.
Figuring out how to win this sort of thing politically. It’s not clear how.
I think we need to work the media and our message so that we tie the enablers — the legislators (both Republican and Democrat), the NRA, and those members of the public who defend these obscene weapons and their ammunition — to the grief and agony of the victims and their families.
Our Walthamite is encouraging murder. Period. No matter how these guys squirm and wiggle, that is the bottom line. Well over half the population have “had some mental health issues in the past” and come from families where the parents have divorced. So what.
This killer had an assault rifle, at least TEN high-capacity ammunition magazines, and boxes and boxes of ammunition. Take away that technology, and you turn a vicious killing monster into another angry and unhappy young man.
Those who oppose limits on assault weapons and high-capacity magazine are enablers of and even accessories to murder — we need to paint them that way.
First of all, it is a highly offensive, charged comment, akin to calling coal miners “plunderers, murders, and terrorists”. I like Tom, he makes me think, and I respect his opinions, but I don’t respect what he called me.
How would Tom or BMG feel if I wrote a post with pictures Dr. Gosnell’s aborted babies, and tied it to everyone who supports choice? Would you all like that? Of course not, nor would I offend or try to hurt anyone’s feelings by doing that. I wish the feelings were mutual.
As usual. I don’t see any photos of dead victims that result from the policies you advocate. If you want to post a photograph of forceps or syringes used for abortion, go ahead.
I will go as far as to say that you do not advocate murder, but rather you advocate for policies that are almost guaranteed to result in murder.
“The U.K.’s strict gun controls mean it has a lower homicide rate than the U.S. even though there’s more violent crime, according to a study that also found violence in Britain fell over the past decade.
According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, down from 1,255 in 2003. In the U.S., the figure for 2010 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Still, while the U.S. violent-crime rate is less than half Britain’s, its homicide rate between 2003 and 2011 was almost four times as high.”
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
By your own hand-picked source, you prefer murder over assault. By your own isolated factoid, you acknowledge that the policies you favor result in more deaths.
There’s a lot wrong with your attempt at an argument, but even so you’re arguing my side. So…thank you?
12 US cities alone, totaled 25% of the gun murders. Let’s take a closer look.
“A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.”
Perhaps we shouldn’t let these choir boys out of their cages, when they are arrested for other crimes. Ya think drugs may be involved? So you prove my point, I want less rape, less assaults, and fix the problem another way, and leave the law abiding gun owners, alone.
you need to focus on the post Dan, military grade weapons.
Yes, we also address mental illness better.
Yes, we prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Yes, we do a better job reintegrating excons.
BUT certain weapons belong in the hands of nobody except the military. We should prevent the crimes in the first place, and not by a community version of mutually assured destruction.
Do people have the right to defend themselves, outside of their home, with a firearm? Do you like how in MA your local police chief wields so much power, on who can and cannot conceal carry? Or in Illinois, where nobody can conceal carry? How stupid is Illinois, right?
What you call mutually assured destruction, I call preventative medicine.
…(and possibly a few others necessary for their jobs) walking around with a firearm outside their own property or a designated shooting range. I want certain military grade weapons banned outright. For anything else I want the user trained and licensed and the product registered like we do for cars. I’ve never understood the logic behind concealed-carry. Seems to me if you want to prevent an attack you’d want it obvious you are carrying a gun so someone doesn’t try anything stupid. I stand by my MAD analogy.
Sounds like you’d like background checks huh? Why let the NRA arm these thugs then?
We all know that. Your government, your appointed judges are releasing criminals back onto the streets, that’s the main problem JC.
I have already asked this question, and will ask it again.
Would you, in exchange for a federal registry, I mean, a more comprehensive background check and banning future sales or semi-auto rifles (not semi-auto pistols), that places with strict conceal-carry laws (where most of the murders happen to take place), are forced to remove such bans from their books? Regardless of where you live, Chicago or Chicopee, one has a right to conceal-carry (provided they have passed a gun safety course, background check, etc)
Keep or add to existing bans AND create a federal registry. Certain people pose as tough on crime then undermine some of the easiest ways to fight it.
You’ve made your own bed, I’m afraid you’ll have to lie in it.
When you advocate keeping this obscene technology (assault weapons and high-capacity magazines) available, you encourage murder. That is the simple truth — and I’m glad my comment apparently hit its mark.
There is no other purpose for this technology besides killing. Virtually ALL of that killing is murder. That is the plain truth.
Deal with it.
Sorry, but I can only vote positively once.