|
|
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.”
#62 – ‘dro
Unlike you, ‘dro, I don’t have to sit in front of the computer for 45 minutes, dawdling away with my sausage-fingers, to create a content-free message.
Why am I not surprised that the one post you make the reveals an knowledge of ANYTHING is a knowledge of ’80’s hair bands? I’ll bet you’ve got the lyrics to “Mister Roboto” all memorized, don’t you?
#61 – Bobo
1. What you said, and what I agreed with, was “no guns, no gun deaths”. I’ll bet Paddy-RAMBO agrees with that. I’ll bet even John Lennon and Charleton Heston agree with each other on that, and agree with you. Anyone who says that your Point 1 makes sense, though, I disagree with. It’s gibberish.
2. The term is “soi-disant”. And of all the posters on dvorak dot org slash blog, you are the biggest soi-disant logician, intellectual, free-thinking bohemian in the bunch. Soi-disant only, mind you.
3. “You didn’t agree with me“. Did too. You said “No guns, no death by guns. Pretty simple.“. And I agreed with you, along with Paddy-RAMBO, John Lennon, and Charleton Heston. I disagreed with the rest of your spaghetti-bowl pretzel logic. As to your NEW point, not raised before, that “lax gun laws lead to more guns, and strong gun laws lead to fewer guns”, I agree with that too. If your “strong gun laws” could be enforced 100%, you’d have a law-abiding populace that was totally unarmed, with criminals having guns at whim. It’s not the total number of guns that’s important, it’s who has them.
4. Bobke, you fashion some of the most extreme positions I have seen posted here. And when people disagree with you, you try and shame them into submission by touting your superior “logic” {koff, koff}, or accuse them of not being able to multi-task, or just call the plain old “stoopid”.
5. You may be right on this one. Since anyone with a gun will, by definition (it’s a ‘definitional thing’, see?), be a criminal, they can pick off sportsmen, and olympic shooters and people unwilling to trust the Kentucky Dept. of Homeland security to protect them, like shooting (!) fish in a barrel. As to the garden-variety criminal, why would it be any easier to find criminals who use guns in your post-freedom world than it is now? Or any easier than it is to catch those who murder with knives, baseball bats, poison, strangulation, or heavy rocks? Or any other criminal for that matter? It will be the same then as it is now. Some will get caught, some will not. Silly point.
6. “We all live and let live“. Well, not all of us. Some want to ban religion. Maybe they’re just talking big (the religion banners have been known to have an inflated sense of self in other areas), but that’s what they say.
Mustard, I won’t take the time to bring relevance to your personality postings, but I will answer a logic/factual error you made.
#5–When only criminals have guns, they are easier to catch. Yes, cop does a car search or sees a buldge in the waist of a bank customer, the cop need only determine it is a gun. No need assume it is legal and at most a permitting violation. In context, of course crimes would have a multiplier for use of guns, etc. Again, simple stuff.
Religion can never be banned, even if it is desired. Religion==a private relationship between god and a sheep. Now, trying to force one’s fantasies down someone else’s throat?==thats not religion, its politics and that certainly should be outlawed, and yes, I would if I could.
I’ll get guns banned first and then work on the walking wounded.
Bobster, if that simple-minded scenario where a “cop does a car search” or “sees a bulge in the waist of a bank customer” has got to be at the all-time top of your “dumb comments” list. Even ham-fisted criminals such as myself know enough to keep our guns in the glove compartment or slid down the back of our trousers where it will be covered by our sport coat (and hidden, unlike the rectangular object under Dumbya’s jacket during the debate).
Are you seriously proposing that noticing folks carrying guns in broad daylight that are pretty much in plain sight is going to have a measurable effect on anything?
As to your second point, forcing someone’s religion down others’ throats, a.k.a. politics, currently IS banned, at least in the United States. Perhaps you’re too busy trying to take guns away from little old ladies and target shooters to notice or do anything about it, but it’s forbidden by that Goddamned Piece of Paper.
That’s not what you’ve spoken about in the past, though; you have expressed a desire to criminalize religion. Deny it if you wish. You must have been butt-fucked by the local priest as a boy or something, with all that anger and bitterness you have towards those who find solace and grace in admiration of things bigger than themselves.
Tsk.
#68 – ‘dro
>>You must be a really important
>>person
I am. Domo arigato for recognizing that, m’hijito.
# 66 bobbo said, “#5–When only criminals have guns, they are easier to catch. ”
So, because I have a shoulder holster under my jacket, it is harder for cops to catch criminals?
Okay, remember, just say no to drugs.
#71 – ‘dro
Too bad Bobbo as already reserved the rights to screen names similar to his; I would have suggested you change yours to “Bobo”. I think “Estúpido” and “Imbécil” may still be up for grabs, though. Get ’em now, before some squatter strikes!
#39 – The 2nd Amendment is the one that protects all the others. Yeah, it’s a corny catch phrase, but it also happens to accurately describe the situation.
The underlying problem in the so-called “civilized” countries is that the populace thinks of their gov’t as their rulers rather than their representatives. Here in America we do not elect rulers and have a guaranteed right to back that up if things go too far.
# 39 Grimbo said, “however the 2nd amendment has no place in the twenty first century… in any country.”
So what country do you live in?
No, it’s correct. Have your handler do a search for you next time he comes in to clean your cage:-)
#76 – Onan
>>No, it’s correct.
Uh, no it’s not.
Fuckin mexicans. This and and a nigger stampede at Walmart? Welcome to the USA.
Wow…I can’t believe all the lame comments and fights on this blog that were spurred as a result of the article above! Doesn’t it kind of demonstrate how stupid shit happens (like in the article above) due to ignorance and disregard for other people! Geez!