September 17, 2006

Geez! Say what you want about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms but incidents like this are showing that too many people have access to guns who are simply not capable of the necessary self control gun possession requires.

posted by billsaysthis at 12:39 PM on September 17, 2006

billsaysthis, what's your solution?

posted by T$PORT4lawschool at 03:22 PM on September 17, 2006

Controlling criminal use would be a lot easier if manufacturers, distributors, sellers and the NRA would stop blocking almost every attempt at passing effective registration and licensing laws, not to mention mandatory trigger locks and similar tech. - Stop selling guns at shows. - Stop manufacturing any and every type of gun that people are willing to buy--how about sticking to a (relatively) few models appropriate for either hunting or personal/home defense. - NRA and manufacturers should stop lobbying to block any UN attempts to regulate weapons deals. - Etch serial numbers somewhere inside the gun in a place where filing it off or otherwise removing it is extremely difficult. Those seem like a good start.

posted by billsaysthis at 05:05 PM on September 17, 2006

Since gun barrels leave distinctive scratches on bullets that can be used to identify the gun they were fired from, why not put a "barcode" of slightly raised areas inside the barrel. You would be able to know what gun fired a shot as soon as you recovered the bullet. Sure, guns get stolen and criminals would figure out how to grind off the identifying ridges but it would help catch the really stupid crooks of which there are many.

posted by Most_Voluble_Poster at 03:16 AM on September 18, 2006

FWIW, there is no suggestion that this was a stolen or unlicensed gun in the article. Indeed, there is nothing in the article to suggest that the gun wasn't bought through the proper channels at a gun store in an entirely legal and proper way. That being said, this was an awful crime and I hope that they catch the criminal that shot these young men.

posted by Joey Michaels at 04:49 AM on September 18, 2006

We (Canadians) had one of those mass-murdering randoms last Tuesday. The guns were legally bought and registered to the guy who walked into a school in Montreal and shot 12 people - so far killing one (three are still in critical condition). As far as I'm concerned, the best part about the whole thing was that the cops didn't surround the building and wait for back up - they showed up within minutes, followed the gunman inside and he was dead within ten (first they shot him, then he shot himself). Those basketball players appear to be the victims of something similar. An Arguement or confrontation where one party seems to have determined that an acceptable response to his problem or situation is trying to murder five people. The point is - legal firearms in the first instance had nothing to do with it. It doesn't strike me as a solution in and of itself. I personally, find the second amendment retarded, but that's more of a cultural thing. My own impression is that we have a broader issue of a society that glorifies violence as a solution to a problem. But really, the idea of having the entire population able to get automatic/concealeble weapons that have a sole purpose of eviscerating people in the most efficient manner possible is well, stupid. Over 200,000 Americans are shot every year - mostly by people they know, mostly not committing crimes.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:55 AM on September 18, 2006

billysaythis, Sounds like you are just an anti-gun. Guns don't kill people do. Get real! The culture of violence in my opinion is the problem. You may not like guns, but if you ever needed one you'd quickly change you mind. NRA is not a criminal. America as being sovereign can do what the people desire without the UN. For your sake billsaysthis I pray you never need a firearm. I suggest joining some political organization so you can work with you ideals. Take care.

posted by T$PORT4lawschool at 10:52 AM on September 18, 2006

T$, did you even read billsaysthis response? Where did he say the NRA was a criminal? Where did he say he was against guns for personal defense? You probably should have actually read the comments before responding.

posted by bperk at 11:04 AM on September 18, 2006

What Weedy said.

posted by tommybiden at 11:16 AM on September 18, 2006

A great deal is either not known or not being discussed at this point, although a two things are clear: a perpetrator with a short fuse and a firearm, and some victims who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and ran into a nutjob. Given the clear lack of any contributing or aggravating factors from the victims -- they tried to calm the guy down, it seems -- and the severe nature of their injuries, it seems that arguments in favor of firearm regulation are owed at least a respectful hearing, and not a brush-off with a garbled, semiliterate spew of NRA slogans.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:46 AM on September 18, 2006


posted by kennyp78 at 12:37 PM on September 18, 2006

DONT BLAME THE NRA FOR BAD DNA!!! Member since September 18, no links, one surprises.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:17 PM on September 18, 2006

The NRA was a client of a company I worked for about 10 years ago. They made two impressions on me: 1) They reflexively leap at the suggestion of anything that sounds like regulation of guns, regardless of how light-handed or reasonable the other side may be; and 2) They have absolutely, hands down, the worst PR-to-clout ratio of any organization in the US. Their PR is just terrible, ridiculously defense-oriented -- they spend an ungodly amount of time trying to convince everyone that they are not criminals. And in the US, if you don't drink the general presumption is that you are an alcoholic. On topic: regardless of how much gun-control may or may not be at issue here, an incident like this certainly does put into perspective any disappointment over a 3-24 season.

posted by BullpenPro at 01:23 PM on September 18, 2006

What Weedy said. I agree - for the most part. The only thing I'd debate is the 2nd amendment being "retarded". Although it's a cliche at this point, you do have to think about what our founding fathers were going through. On the heels of overthrowing a well-established government, they had the foresight to know that their own government ran the risk of being distorted by its own caretakers, to the point of not being what "the people" wanted or even going so far as to warrant another revolution. However, allowing for this logical "freedom" has opened the door for numbnuts to ignore its intent of selfpreservation and parade around neighborhoods toting weapons, some of which have no business in society and are built for only one reason - to kill other people. For mental giants like T$ and kennyp - most folks aren't "anti-gun" - they're "anti-extremists", which is the kindest word I can think of to describe people who justify this kind of crime and allow it to continue by standing unconditionally behind "but that there consitution allows me to keeps my shoot-em-ups." Back to the sport side of this - I'll be pulling for and will hopefully remember to keep tabs on the Duquesne team this winter.

posted by littleLebowski at 01:25 PM on September 18, 2006

I say "retarded" in the perjorative sense. What once may have had value, in the framework of the universe the founding fathers lived in, no longer does. What is percieved as an inaliable right, is in fact simply an entrenched idea of entitled behaviour. I am sad that it is considered in the same vein as something so vastly different as freedom of speech. Countries must be allowed to evolve. Certain consititutional features seem to prevent this. I suppose in this part of the equation, I use "retarded" in the strictest definition of the word. Good luck to those that are suffering. In keeping with the sports side of this - well, there really isn't one.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:53 PM on September 18, 2006

Now I can say it without qualification ... What Weedy said

posted by littleLebowski at 01:57 PM on September 18, 2006

T$PORT4lawschool: I guess you missed the point where I suggested limiting (not eliminating) the number of types of guns available, limiting channels of availability and adding other elements to limit accidental use and increase identifiability. Not once did I write that private ownership of guns should be prohibited. I also seemed to have mistaken the intention of your plainly asked question; I thought it was supposed to start a discussion. But your reaction is exactly--exactly--what I mean by the overzealousness over the NRA and its members/supporters. Don't give a single inch in any dimension because otherwise we'll all be sitting in our houses with the doors barred as the felons invade our now defenseless homes.

posted by billsaysthis at 05:29 PM on September 18, 2006

I am so sick of heariing guns don't kill people. People kill people. Is that the best you can come up with. How about taking the gun out of the hands if morons like you. I've been many sticky situations and never needed a gun.I don't belive in them and never will. The only reason for a gun is to deffend this country and I still don't like that ideal. But that is just a realistic one.

posted by Coop4KC at 05:27 AM on September 19, 2006

One arrest made, jealousy believed to be the motive... Includes updates on players' conditions and how events unfolded. One seemingly innocent second and your life is changed forever.

posted by SummersEve at 07:35 AM on September 19, 2006

More details from the Trib-Review... Info on why and how the the girl was arrested. Also says they've made another arrest.

posted by SummersEve at 07:52 AM on September 19, 2006

Ah, that really bugs me. Guy gets jealous because his girlfriend is talking to some basketball players - fine. Guy and his buddy decide to blow the whole team away - not fine. What kind of a buddy does that? He can't exactly claim it was a crime of passion. Throw the book at that guy. What a complete dumbass. See? It's the stupid mixed with the guns that makes the death cocktail.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:27 AM on September 19, 2006

From SummersEve's first link: "No one has described a scenario that comes close to justifying violence of any sort..." What kind of scenario would that be?

posted by BullpenPro at 09:06 AM on September 19, 2006

Some sort of Red Sox-Yankees series.

posted by yerfatma at 09:42 AM on September 19, 2006

What kind of scenario would that be? I think the idea is, the gun wasn't fired in anything resembling self-defense. Thassall.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:50 AM on September 19, 2006

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.