Quantcast

Maryland Police May Have Prevented Another Aurora: Should We Focus on the Killers or the Guns?

Daryl 2012/07/27 19:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Another Aurora-type shooting spree may have been prevented by Maryland police. Do you think we should focus on the killers or the guns?

Washington Post reports: "Authorities have taken a man into custody who referred to himself as “a joker” and threatened to shoot people at his former workplace in Prince George’s County, investigators said Friday."

maryland police

Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/po...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Scott 2012/07/27 19:34:27
    The guns
    Scott
    +45
    O so much on the guns. Just the other day I was walking down the street minding my own business and suddenly a hand gun jumped out from the bushes and took a shot at me! And my neighbor was in his own backyard and attacked by a rifle! I'm telling you these guns are getting out of hand? Lock 'em all up and throw away the keys?

    The killers? Well, it probably wasn't their fault in the first place. You know, one parent families, they got bullied in school, and they can't afford a cool car. Jeez - it's no wonder! They should be spoken to very firmly, I mean really let them know that we mean business and asked not to do it again.

    Next problem!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • brian.southworth.921 2012/07/29 12:05:09
    The killers
    brian.southworth.921
    And use the death penalty. It is a very good tool for social control. However, since they are not as public as they used to be, the shock of the execution has lessened and doesn't hold as much force as when there were public executions. Fear is a strong motivator and social constraint against such anti social behavior.
  • Big Bird brian.s... 2012/07/29 15:29:58
    Big Bird
    Use the death penalty for what? To "deter" the next guy? That doesn't work. The only thing the death penalty is good for is to "deter" the individual being killed. The next individual is going to believe that: "I'll never get caught, or taken alive, if I am caught." Death penalty for which offenses also comes to mind. Making the execution/s "public" doesn't work any better as a "deterrent to the 'next guy' ". "The next guy" will merely make certain that he is not in attendance at the execution/s.

    "There are NO 'dangerous weapons', ONLY dangerous people"!!!-Robert A Heinlein (emphasis added)
  • Playerazzi 2012/07/29 12:02:02
    The killers
    Playerazzi
    Sure, the killers.

    But who are they?

    It's much easier to focus on the guns.

    We should actually do both.
  • jackola... Playerazzi 2012/07/29 13:48:28
    jackolantyrn356
    LOOK IT IS OBAMA LOOK IT IS HOLDER, LOOK IT IS "BIG SIS" lOOK IT IS A MILLION JEW HATERS, look IT IS ALL THE BLACK MUSLIMS IN AMERICA,

    LOOK WELL AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT TODAY OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING DONE NOTHING. tHE WINDOWS OF ACTION ARE ALREADY CLOSING
  • Playerazzi jackola... 2012/07/29 18:29:50
    Playerazzi
    Oh, brother.

    oh, sorry . . . . . . . OH BROTHER
  • Big Bird Playerazzi 2012/07/29 15:33:29
    Big Bird
    Why focus on those who are law abiding firearms owners?



    "There are NO 'dangerous weapons', ONLY dangerous people"!!!-Robert A Heinlein (emphasis added)
  • Playerazzi Big Bird 2012/07/29 18:30:56
    Playerazzi
    Well, before he killed more than a dozen people, this Holmes dude was a "law-abiding firearms owner", so we don't really know who is law-abiding and who is not, do we?
  • Big Bird Playerazzi 2012/09/04 07:04:29
    Big Bird
    Was Holmes REALLY a "law abiding" firearms owner???
    The MOMENT he opened fire on those he wounded/killed, he became a "CRIMINAL firearms owner" AND a serial killer!

    YES, we do "know" who IS, and who IS NOT a "law abiding" firearms owner!
    The sad fact is, that we don't know, in advance, if a "law abiding" firearms, knife, or other household tool owner, is going to become a criminal by MISUSING the tool/s in his/her possession, or remain a "law abiding" firearms/household tool owner their ENTIRE LIFE!
    Mere possession of everyday, ordinary tools, including firearms, is NOT a predictor of who is going to employ that/those tool/s to bring harm/death to other humans!

    You can safely ignore the "gun" on the counter-top, it's not going to jump up and kill you, by itself, it is INERT, even with a FULL LOAD of ammunition inside it!
    It's the pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other tool, in a human's hand/s that you CANNOT "safely ignore"!
    The same goes for a lot of the "tools" that humans employ, ("safely"), on a daily basis, most of which CAN be easily used to attack/kill another human!!!

    "There are NO 'dangerous weapons', there are only dangerous men"!!! - Robert Heinlein; STARSHIP TROOPERS - (emphasis mine)
  • Playerazzi Big Bird 2012/09/04 10:08:28
    Playerazzi
    I'm going according to the reports I read.

    Alluvuasudden, this ostensibly normal dude goes on a rampage. How can we predict something like that? Very difficult.

    But if firearms are more difficult to acquire, then that can help to mitigate the damage of such a rampage, if not prevent it.
  • Smuwf, Twin 2012/07/29 11:56:51
    The killers
    Smuwf, Twin
    Focus on the killers through the guns,billing receipts ,ammunition sales,known boarders of weaponry,make the background checks more extensive,raise prices,ban full auto weapons to all but genuine private contractors and law inforcement crack down om it all
  • NeutronBomb 2012/07/29 09:34:41
    The killers
    NeutronBomb
    but access to firearms must be taken in to account.
  • (>*~*)>Zombiecat<(*-*<) 2012/07/29 09:28:42
    The killers
    (>*~*)>Zombiecat<(*-*<)
    +3
    If you ban guns the bad guys would still get them and the good guys would be defenseless. Period.
  • Smuwf, ... (>*~*)>... 2012/07/29 12:00:46
    Smuwf, Twin
    +1
    Yeah,you can buy a rack of katyusha rockets in russia for 7.5k for example,not to mention the sheer bulk of kalashmikovs on sale. Guns are as easy to buy as milk of you want one
  • L1 2012/07/29 08:50:48
    The killers
    L1
    Both actually. Disturbed people should not have any access to guns in the first place.
  • Xed0 L1 2012/07/29 09:08:10
    Xed0
    +2
    But who gets to decide who is "disturbed"?



    If progressives had it their way anyone who wasn't a progressive could be labeled as "unstable" and barred the use of what is rightfully theirs.



    I have a friend who cannot own a gun because a teacher had him submitted to a psych ward, funny thing, he is the sanest person i know. That teacher got corrected by my friend and she ruined him for the rest of his life because of it.
  • L1 Xed0 2012/08/01 06:23:38
    L1
    The doctors do, but too often because of other laws in place ( like HIPAA) they aren't just allowed to release medical records without have evidence that the person is a threat to themselves or others.

    Too often the ones that are real threats never get reported until after the fact, then what? It's too late.
  • Bill L1 2012/07/29 22:15:25
    Bill
    I guess that means no more guns for liberals.
  • L1 Bill 2012/08/01 06:20:59
    L1
    Maybe not, some liberals do have guns though.
  • Nintaku 2012/07/29 07:38:47
    The killers
    Nintaku
    Did you know that you can kill someone with your bare hands? I guess we should remove your hands, or your teeth since those are better at causing deadly harm.

    Point is, killers will always exist. They will use anything they can get to kill people. If our society was not so ass--backwards that people become disenfranchised with trying to live the "American" life that they turn on us, then we wouldn't have this problem.

    This has not happened because it is not profitable for corporations, and therefore will not get voted in by corporation owned statesmen. Therefore we will have more shooting, more civilians and citizens will get murdered. The corporate owned news companies will broadcast the "horrible" incidents, but will not do anything beyond milk it for ratings.

    People who have become sociopaths need mental assistance, from a trained professional. They do not need to be hounded, hated, and harmed for sliding down the slippery slope since that will just speed them on the way to the bottom. When they reach the bottom they will start killing people, people who have become nothing more than puppets of a greater machine.
  • Blaxican 2012/07/29 07:38:22
    The killers
    Blaxican
    +3
    Some guns are used for protection. Why take away everyone's right when some people are just idiots?
  • jackola... Blaxican 2012/07/29 13:51:04
    jackolantyrn356
    THE WORLD IS FULL OF GUN CONTROL AND YOU ARE CAUGHT IN A GANG RAPE OM THE VERY NIGHT THE POLICE WENT FOR HAMBURGERS AND WILL BE A HALF HOUR LATE
  • kitty.robinson.102 2012/07/29 07:20:36
    The killers
    kitty.robinson.102
    Killers.....they can take anything out of midair and make it seem dangerous. Just today I found out that cherries are out to get me!!!
  • Jiorgia 2012/07/29 06:08:09
    The guns
    Jiorgia
    +1
    Well both, killers are killers and will always try to kill, but it is always easier to defend against a knife then it is to defend against a gun.

    Ok, you all have the right to bear arms, why does that extend to automatic guns, it really shouldn't.
    When was the last time someone defended themselves with an automatic gun?
  • Richard... Jiorgia 2012/07/29 07:01:23
    Richard Hungwell AKA Relentless
    +1
    Yeah, but it is also easier to stop a man with a knife if you have a gun.
    If you had an understanding of what the right to bare arms was intended for you would have a better understanding of why it should extend to automatics. But it appears you don't even know what an automatic is. As we do not currently have the right to them.

    point in case, just last week a man with a gun stopped a stabbing attack at a grocery store, using a gun that you would most likely mis-classify as an automatic.
    Full story: http://www.abc4.com/content/a...
  • Jiorgia Richard... 2012/07/29 09:33:48
    Jiorgia
    If it shoots one bullet for every time you pull the trigger it is not an automatic, if it shoots more then one bullet for every time you pull the trigger (or holding the trigger down) it is an automatic.

    if someone has a gun and you dont, you have no chance in stopping them from killing you, if someone has a knife and you dont you atleast have a chance.
  • jackola... Jiorgia 2012/07/29 14:03:11
    jackolantyrn356
    +2
    iF HE HAS A KNIFE YOU HAVE NO CHANCE EITHER. MOST PEOPLE FACING A KNIFE LOSE THE OL' NERVE FACING IT.
  • Jiorgia jackola... 2012/07/29 15:36:35
    Jiorgia
    you have a fighting chance, a person wishing to shoot you doesn't even have to be within reach of you to do it.
  • Richard... Jiorgia 2012/07/29 20:01:59
    Richard Hungwell AKA Relentless
    Which makes it easier to dodge...
  • Jiorgia Richard... 2012/07/30 01:54:35
    Jiorgia
    other way around.
  • Richard... Jiorgia 2012/07/30 15:46:11
    Richard Hungwell AKA Relentless
    No, a gun shot from a distance is easier to dodge than a knife at close range. Like I said before, the general public is not very proficient with firearms and even less so at a moving target.
  • Richard... Jiorgia 2012/07/29 20:01:25
    Richard Hungwell AKA Relentless
    Well then you should understand that the general public can not just go out and buy an automatic, that has been outlawed since the 30's

    Gun or knife, either way if your unarmed your screwed! You chances of stopping them are the same either way. Regardless of what the media would have you believe, most people are not very proficient with firearms and certainly not with an automatic. Gun shot wounds generally render ~15-20% mortality rate. So it would seem that at least 80% of the time you do have a chance. Now granted if they sneak up from behind your screwed but same goes for if they have a knife.
  • Nintaku Jiorgia 2012/07/29 07:57:55
    Nintaku
    +1
    I implore you to look at the United Kingdom.
    Once guns were banned their rate of violent crimes skyrocketed. When all weapons were banned the amount of crimes rose even more.

    If you want a comparison of The United Kingdom and The United States then there is information that can be found online with ease. The fact is The United Kingdom has about the same rate of Violent Crimes as the U.S.A. while having less than half our population.
    (UK Pop is about 64 million, USA is about 311 million)

    Also, not to fault your earlier statement, but resisting someone with a knife, or any melee weapon for that matter, comes down to strength and skill. If you do not know how to defend yourself against an armed combatant then you will die if the assailant wants to kill you. Your best bet is to outrun the attacker. If you had a gun you could just withdraw, chamber a round, and then shoot the attacker.

    Seeing how the majority of people cannot run a mile, and criminals are more inclined to run distance, you'll get caught, thrown down, and then, with his knee in your back, get your carotid arteries slashed open.
    Don't worry though! You'd stop feeling pain within 10 seconds, and you'd black out within 30. Fifteen minute later, brain death. And--if you had the ability to fight back against someone physically more imposing than yourself who was armed, you might have stood a chance.
  • Neutron... Nintaku 2012/07/29 09:39:45 (edited)
    NeutronBomb
    I live in the UK and what you are saying is incorrect, the crime rate did not rocket after the banning of certain weapons, which incidentally was handguns only not all weapons. If you think the UK has the same rate of violent crime as the US you are seriously mistaken, where are you getting this information from? It is completely inaccurate.
  • Nintaku Neutron... 2012/07/29 10:18:06
    Nintaku
    Google. XD
    The paper it was written over was if Firearms should or shouldn't be banned. Most of the information I found was based around the various bans and the influence said bans had on the criminal underground, and the number of violent crimes per year. In general, preventing civilians from owning firearms to protect themselves ended up with an increase in violent crimes. To your credit it has been about 4 years since I wrote the paper, and it is possible the ratios are different then remembered.

    The opposite point of view is that, statistically, carrying a weapon on your person, E.G., firearm, knife, increases your chances of being the victim of assault with a deadly weapon by about 4 times overall. People get it in their heads that just because he/she has a weapon that the individual will be effective in it.
  • Neutron... Nintaku 2012/07/29 10:40:32
    NeutronBomb
    +1
    That information is either completely inaccurate or you have interpreted it incorrectly without meaning to be patronising, as I said only handguns have been banned in the UK, that is quite an easy fact to check up on and so the sources you have used are incorrect. I believe you are right in your second point although there are other factors to consider in the understanding of how such statistics are gathered, The people who are more likely to carry a weapon are those more likely to be involved in criminal activity which gives a different picture than just the ratio of people carrying weapons and who are also attacked.
  • Jiorgia Neutron... 2012/07/29 12:18:10
    Jiorgia
    +1
    It should also be noted that looking at overall crime rates as a comparison between two countries is a moot point as what is considered a crime in each country is rather different, a very simple example is that carrying a firearm in the UK is a crime whereas in the US it is not.

    Looking at intentional homicide rates and armed offences rates (any crime committed with a weapon) is the better way to look at the difference between a country with gun control and a country without.

    Intentional homicide rate 2010:
    USA 4.8 per 100,000
    UK 1.23 per 100,000

    Armed offences 2010:
    USA 41.3 per 100,000
    UK 3.3 per 100,000
  • Neutron... Jiorgia 2012/07/29 17:13:23
    NeutronBomb
    That sounds much more accurate, where on earth he is getting his information from I dont know but its way way out.
  • Jiorgia Neutron... 2012/07/30 02:17:37
    Jiorgia
    Well no he is kinda right, the UK violent crime rate is very very high, just higher then the US, but people fail to take into consideration that ALOT of the UK is urban area, you have 60 million people on a tiny island (244,820 km²).
    The US has 300 million people on the 3rd biggest country in the world (9,631,418 km²).
    And Australia with a very low violent crime rate has 20 million people on the 6th biggest country in the world (7,686,850 km²).

    People in the UK have on average 0.004km² to themselves (4 square meters).
    People in the US have on average 0.032km² to themselves (32 square meters).
    People in the AU have on average 0.384km² to themselves (384 square meters).
    Who do you think is going to have the most violent crime and who do you think is going to have the least.

    That America and the UK are similar in numbers is bad for America.
  • Neutron... Jiorgia 2012/07/30 02:21:47
    NeutronBomb
    Sorry but those figures mean nothing in relation to crime against populace, the UK has high levels of crime in its inner city areas as does the US, but the murder rate is far lower in comparison to population density.
  • Jiorgia Neutron... 2012/07/30 02:46:39
    Jiorgia
    I was explaining why the UK violent crime rate was so high, the UK while having a smaller population has a much higher population density.
    Comparing the UK with the US (with a much lower population density) only by population, the UK violent crime rate is higher then the US, if you compared the UK with areas of the US with a similar population density ie Los Angeles and New York, the US has a much much higher violent crime rate.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/08/22 13:55:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals