|
|
Associated Press – November 28, 2008:
Authorities say two people have been killed inside a Toys “R” Us store in Southern California.
Riverside County sheriff’s Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez says Palm Desert police got a call saying shots had been fired inside the store Friday.
He says two people are dead inside, but further details were not immediately available.
Update – Here’s a full description of the event from the Associated Press – November 29, 2008:
The shooting occurred in a crowded toy store on the traditional start of the holiday shopping season, but authorities say it wasn’t related to the bargain-hunting frenzy. Instead, two men pulled guns and killed each other after the women with them erupted into a bloody brawl, witnesses said.
Authorities released few details about the mayhem that broke out at the Toys “R” Us store around 11:30 a.m. Friday, sending scared shoppers fleeing. Riverside County sheriff’s Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez said the fight was not over a toy and that handguns were found by the men’s bodies. He refused to say whether the shooting was gang-related.
Witnesses Scott and Joan Barrick said they were checking out of the store when the brawl began between two women, each with a man. The women were near the checkout area, but the Barricks did not think the women had purchases.
One woman suddenly started punching the other woman, who fought back as blood flowed from her nose, said Scott Barrick, 41. The man who was with the woman being punched pulled a gun halfway out of his pocket, then shoved it back in, he said.
“He pulled his gun right next to me. I turned to look for my wife, and she was already hiding,” Scott Barrick said.
The other man pulled a gun and pointed it at the first man but forgot to cock it, Scott Barrick said. The first man tried to run but was blocked by the line of people, then ran back toward the store’s electronics section as the other man fired his gun, he said.
The first man reached a dead-end in electronics, turned around and ran toward an exit, pulling his gun and firing back, Scott Barrick said.
“He went up to the cash register, he went to put his hand on the thing and he just went phoomp,” he said, indicating the man fell.
Toys “R” Us issued a statement expressing outrage over the violence.
“We are working closely with local law enforcement officials to determine the specific details of what occurred,” the statement said. “Our understanding is that this act seems to have been the result of a personal dispute between the individuals involved. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to associate the events of today with Black Friday.”
#29 – Alex Wollangk
>> I’ve never seen any reliable research that
>>ties strict small arms gun control laws to
>>reduced gun crime.
Me neither. You can point to NYC or Washington DC, that have draconian gun control laws and are riddled with crime. Or Vermont, which has had unrestricted CCW and virtually no crime. Or the other 37 states that now have must-issue CCW permits (you get one unless you are disqualified), and there’s just no correlation between tightening the already-tight gun control laws and a decrease in crime.
#31,
we could take anything from people with an IQ under 100, and that would take it away from 1/2 of the people. By definition, and IQ of 100 is average, with half of people scoring higher, and 1/2 of people scoring lower.
Seriously wtf?! I’m glad we don’t have this in the UK.
“Jingle All The Way” ???
#34 Nemesis:
“Seriously wtf?! I’m glad we don’t have this in the UK.”
You just get stabbed to death in the UK. Or trampled to death at a “football” game. So much better.
The reason I prefer the idea of control of guns (and as a Brit you’d expect me to) is encapsulated in the old phrase
“If you have a hammer all your problems look like nails”
I think that describes the incident reported here.
But I can see that when you’ve got nails you need a hammer
“try the Sudan. Lots of dark faces there, and the death rate from gun homicide is only 1/15th that of Switzerland.”
Ahh…. I don’t think so. I can say I know the exactly figures between Switzerland and the Sudan, but the Sudan in the midst of a horrific civil war and has been since the 1950s … and that hundreds of thousands of its civilians are forced into slavery (and I don’t mean virtual ‘wage slavery’ I mean chained up and beaten slaver).
It is true that Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate, people are also trained etc, but it is also worth noting that Switzerland has a very good social welfare system, including excellent universal healthcare, good benefits for the disabled, the unemployed, etc.
And armed population is dangerous, but and armed and poor and desperate population like you have the in the US is extremely dangerous.
#13
One day it will be taken from your cold dead hand.
I sincerely think the USA should be praised for its insistence on holding onto its principals of freedom, however the 2nd amendment has no place in the twenty first century… in any country.
Given the things that Adam Curry and John Dvorak have been talking about going on in the UK on their No Agenda podcast. I think the founding fathers were correct in creating the 2nd Amendment, and to think that it has no place in the 21st century is being rather short sighted.
There is a positive correlation between gun ownership and murder by guns. The exceptions like Switzerland and Israel and Vermont do not invalidate the general relationship.
No guns–no death by guns.
Never been a drive by knifing.
The notion that guns keep you safe is a miss perception of safety. Thinking gun ownership keeps you safe from an overreaching government is paranoid and infantile.
# 38 DCI Gene Hunt said, “but it is also worth noting that Switzerland has a very good social welfare system, including excellent universal healthcare, good benefits for the disabled, the unemployed, etc.”
No, it’s not worth noting. They had extremely low crime before these tax funded items. The two are unrelated.
#13 – Grimbo
>> however the 2nd amendment has no place in
>>the twenty first century… in any country.
Yeah man. After all, we’ve learned over the past 8 years that the Constitution is just a “goddamned piece of paper”. Those outmoded concepts like freedom of religion, speech, press, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, abolition of slavery, universal sufferage, the right to keep and bear arms…wtf???
If we’re buying that drivel, the TERRORISTS HAVE WON!
No toys were harmed.
#12 Mustard, always looking for blame and never for the truth. Kinda touchy for a high yella aren’t ya?
#46 – onomontapeia
>>Kinda touchy for a high yella aren’t ya?
Being at the top of the darkie food chain (high yaller, yaller, high brown, vaseline brown, seal brown, low brown, dark brown) has its responsibilities, you know.
Say, did you know you spell your name wrong?
onomontapeia == everyone knows Mustard is a low yellow. A weed. A caustic and nauseous vexation. I know that your handle is a careful consideration of various factors giving us your result. So is Mister Mustard’s, although I don’t know where he got the Mister from. Musta been from his early naval days.
Anyhoo==Mustardo==how did you fall off the liberal hay wagon, brain damage yourself, and come up with your pro-gun attitude? Sad what head injuries can do.
#48 – Bobo
There’s no such thing as “low yellow”. If you knew any African-Americans, you’d be aware of that.
As to my “stance” on guns, I’m neither for ’em nor agin’ ’em. On the one hand, the people who are the most adamant about having guns available without restriction are ignorant redneck assholes, and probably shouldn’t have guns in the first place. And the ones who are most adamant about disarming the entire law-abiding populace are lilly-livered limousine liberals who wouldn’t know a .50 caliber Desert Eagle from a .22 derringer, and who don’t need a gun only because their bodyguards all have CCW permits.
In the end, it makes no difference. If, in the unlikely event (and contrary to historical experienc) banning guns led to a reduction in murder by handgun, it would just be made up for in an increase in non-handgun-related assault, as well as muggins, rapes, assaults, etc., as has been the case in England.
Mustard–quite thoughtful. Yea, anything “complicated” is pretty much beyond discussion, especially on a blog.
Perhaps a legitimate middle ground is to have the “pro or anti” gun mindset firmly defined as one goes into new laws and social policy.
I think “in the end” it does make a big difference as the murder by guns statistics show by a general positive correlation==including England and logic.
As I said, complex enough to argue about so it does come down to personal values which really can’t be argued about except for their factual basis?
#50 – Bobo
>> the murder by guns statistics show by a
>>general positive correlation==including
>>England and logic.
Uh, no they don’t. You can cook them so they might, but the raw data don’t support anything like that.
But hey, I know that as a card-carrying Atheist, you’re well acquainted with the requirements of blind faith. Your life would be a sham, otherwise.
We went all thru the statistic here on Dvorak a while back. My memory is that the general correlation holds. I hope you aren’t led astray by the many valid individual data point exceptions?
It follows logically as well. No guns, no death by guns.
Pretty simple.
#39
“One day it will be taken from your cold dead hand.”
Sounds like you would be happy for gun owners to get end up dead at the hands of cops. Ok, so you’re good with that. You also good with all the cops that will end up dead going to confiscate those guns?
I swear, you “civilized” people give me the creeps. Bunch a hypocrites.
#52 – Bobo
>>No guns, no death by guns. Pretty simple.
Yeah, Bobbo. Right. In a Cinderella fairy tale, perhaps, where guns were magically un-invented, and nobody, anywhere in the world had any guns.
And you make fun of me for believing in God?
Christ.
# 44 Mister Mustard said, “If we’re buying that drivel, the TERRORISTS HAVE WON!”
Well said.
#54–Ya see Mustard? Your position is so stoopid, you’ve got Paddy-O agreeing with you.
As typical, you can’t keep track of a multi-threaded topic. Thats the problem with complex subjects and any discussion of them.
I was responding to the issue of statistical analysis of positive correlations, and you responded by an inappropriate reference into the difficulties of making changes in a society already overburdened by gun ownership.
Only thing in common there is the word “gun.”
It sounds so good, I’ll say it again: Paddy agrees with your gun position. HAW, haw!!!!! Thats rich.
As far as making fun of your religious positions, most of what you post is exponentially more intelligent than most posts of religion==proof of that is the number of religionists you make fun of yourself. The incisive intellect you use against other hypocritical belief systems is simply not applied to your own.
Thats not intellectual failure, thats just emotions.
# 56 bobbo said, “Thats not intellectual failure, thats just emotions.”
Whatever. At least you aren’t “yelling” at me incoherently today. Did you stop taking those drugs?
Hey Paddy–what was that old expression? Sobriety is for those who can’t stand a drug induced hallucination? The best approach of course is a mix of both without falling completely into one or the other.
I don’t use my caps key to yell, always to highlight/emphasize as an alternative to putting something in quotes, usually as other material is in quotes meaning it has a limited meaning or application compared to the standard dictionary meaning of the word.
Like James Hill, your comments are too repetitious, mechanical, predictable, weak, lacking supporting evicence to generate an emotional response so as to warrant “yelling” or should I say YELLING!!!
The above is posted in a continuing attempt to get you to source your facts especially when specifically challenged to do so. “Facts” might even change some of your views?
Keep the good stuff coming.
#56 – Bobo
>>It sounds so good, I’ll say it again: Paddy
>>agrees with your gun position. HAW, haw!!!!!
>>Thats rich.
Unlike you and many of your calcified bretheren on the left (and right), I don’t adopt a position on the basis of who supports it and who doesn’t support it. I try to determine the validity of the argument on its own merits, and act accordingly. For so-called “free thinkers”, your ilk certainly shows a greatly diminished capacity to think freely. If it’s not on the Liberal (or neocon, or whatever) ticket, you ain’t voting for it.
Tsk.
As to the rest of your self-congratulatory post in which you laud yourself for superhuman abilities in dealing with “multi-threaded topics” and “complex topics”, now THAT is rich.
You said (and I quote) “No guns, no death by guns. Pretty simple.“. And I agreed with you! If there were no guns, there would be no death by guns. That doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference to the fundie Muslims who stone their daughters to death for having had the audacity to get raped, but I digress. I guess it’s harder to ban rocks than it is to ban guns.
Where you and I differ, son, is that I don’t believe there’s a single shred of evidence to suggest that, by assuring criminals that not a single solitary law-abiding soul can defend themself with a gun, there will be any reduction in crime. Not a whit of evidence. At the risk of sounding like a pimp for the NRA, if gun ownership is made criminal, only criminals will have guns.
And as to “the number of religionists [I] make fun of”, it only seems like a lot, because the only posts that show up here on Dvorzhak dot org slash blog deal with lunatics on (or beyond) the fringe. In real life, I seldom (if ever) make fun of religionists, be they Christian, Muslim, or Atheist. Of course, I don’t go out of my way to associate with wild-eyed fanatics, and those kinds of kooks are such a rarity that my encounters with them are few and far between. I did razz a Catholic not too long ago for her schizophrenic anti (surgical)-/ pro (Ortho Novum)- abortion actions, but whaddayagonna do? She wasn’t a real Catholic anyway, if she was taking birth control pills.
For the most part, I just live and let live.
#58 – Bobbo
“I…always to highlight/emphasize as an alternative to putting something in quotes”.
Now THAT’S the sign of a true free thinker!! Enclosing things in double equals signs or forward slashes, instead of using those boring, pedestrian quotation marks!!
You’re a wild and crazy guy, Bobbo!
Mustard, how do you miss it?
1. You say: “I don’t adopt a position on the basis of who supports it and who doesn’t support it” /// What I posted, that Paddy-O agrees with you is a completely different, almost “opposite” point. Thats not multi-threaded nor difficult to follow, yet you have lost your way.
2. There is no self-congratulations, no soi-dissant in my posts. Analysis. You can disagree as you do. You can be wrong or right as you marshal your facts and respond. Says nothing about me.
3. You didn’t agree with me. You said gun laws made no difference (don’t quibble) whereas the positive correlation shows that gun laws do make a difference again with another positive correlation that lax gun laws result in more guns whereas strong gun laws ((over time for those dogmatic fetishers)) result in fewer guns.
4. “Where you and I differ” is that I don’t fashion an extreme position ignoring everything else that was posted and pretend that is the other persons position, nor even a reasonable position.
5. When only criminals have guns, they are easier to catch. You have won over Paddy, adding the NRA to your band of idiots reveals the dogmatic support of the pro-gun position. A false idol if you will.
6. We all live and let live and “by definition” kooks are avoided. I suspect we search out Dvorak in order to exercise those demons we don’t meet in real life, rocks, knives, and guns fire being difficult to pass thru the interwebitubes.
Now, Pedro. Having too much time on our hands is what gives us time to think about the important issues of the day. Time to stop and smell a flower, if its not raining outside. Time to help a child learn how to blog.
In short, everything that mankind has or ever will accomplish will come from “free time.”