You guessed it, another shooting.

[General Zod]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08 ... e-say?lite

Updated at 5 p.m. ET: Three people are dead after an employee shot to death two coworkers before killing himself at a New Jersey supermarket Friday morning, authorities said.
Police said the shooting happened just before 4 a.m. inside a Pathmark grocery store on Route 9 in Old Bridge, N.J., about 25 miles from New York.

The victims were 18-year-old Christine Lo Brutto and 24-year-old Bryan Breen, both from Old Bridge. The gunman, Terence S. Tyler, was 23 years old, police said.
All three were working the night shift at the Pathmark with 12 other employees. The store was closed at the time, scheduled to open at 6 a.m.
Get the latest on the supermarket shooting from BreakingNews.com
Police believe Tyler may have gotten into an argument with a coworker at the Pathmark before he allegedly left the store around 3:30 a.m. Police say he then went to his car, drove away and returned to the store about 20 minutes later, dressed in camouflage clothing and with a weapon similar to an AK-47 assault rifle.

Police say Tyler opened fired on an employee standing outside the store, then went inside and fired at least 16 shots from the rifle at five employees, killing two people. He then killed himself with a handgun.
Some employees ran out of the back of the store to escape, while police safely removed other employees after making entry into the store. No shots were fired by police.
Authorities said the victims were not necessarily targeted, but the motive is under investigation. Officials recovered the rifle, several ammunition magazines and a 45 caliber handgun from the scene.

Tyler was a former Marine, who earned several medals for his service between March 2008 and February 2010. At the time of his discharge, he achieved the rank of Lance Corporal. He was an Old Bridge resident and had been working at the Pathmark since Aug. 20. Police said Tyler may have had a history of depression and mental illness.
The family of victim Lo Brutto, a recent high school grad, has asked for privacy. However, neighbor Carolyn Anders said Lo Brutto had a "heart of gold, always smile on her face."
"Why does an 18-year-old have to lose her life? She just [began] it," Anders said.
A vigil for Lo Brutto and Breen was planned for Friday night.

Employees who were in the store at the time of the shooting congregated later in the morning outside a TGI Friday's restaurant in the shopping center where the supermarket is located.
New Jersey Transit closed its nearby park-and-ride lot, The Associated Press reported.
Aerial news video showed heavily armed police on the ground outside the supermarket and several windows broken.
The store was closed Friday. Pathmark officials had no immediate comment on the shooting.
NBC News' Jonathan Dienst, Brynn Gingras, Brian Thompson and Katherine Creag contributed to this report.

I'm guessing this is going to turn out to be one of three things.

Dude was in danger of losing his apartment, suffering from PTSD, or having a messy fallout with a girlfriend. Alternatively, some combination of the three. Given he was ex-military, you can't even really argue that banning sales to civilians would have prevented him from going off. Could've just as easily happened while he was serving given his mental history.

[Col. Crackpot]

Not to be a dick, but does N&P have to be geek equivalent of the newspaper police blotter?

[General Zod]

Not to be a dick, but does N&P have to be geek equivalent of the newspaper police blotter?

So post other stuff?

[Purple]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. I know Americans are against gun control let alone baning firearms and the whole "self defense" rhetoric. I also know the whole story about how guns will be there anyway etc. But just out of curiosity. What would happen if you did not ban gun ownership but made separate and very difficult to acquire permits to actually carry said guns out into the street? That way anyone can have his rifles for hunting or home defense or what ever. But anyone with a gun out in the open wold immediately raise eyebrows (especially with law enforcement) thus reducing his chance of surprising anyone let alone committing violent gun crime. At least the random kind.

Am I making any sense with this or is it crazy?

[General Zod]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. I know Americans are against gun control let alone baning firearms and the whole "self defense" rhetoric. I also know the whole story about how guns will be there anyway etc. But just out of curiosity. What would happen if you did not ban gun ownership but made separate and very difficult to acquire permits to actually carry said guns out into the street? That way anyone can have his rifles for hunting or home defense or what ever. But anyone with a gun out in the open wold immediately raise eyebrows (especially with law enforcement) thus reducing his chance of surprising anyone let alone committing violent gun crime. At least the random kind.

Am I making any sense with this or is it crazy?

It's not exactly relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry ... ted_States

Take a look at the map, and guess which states have the most gun crimes. It's evenly split between permissive open carry and restrictive open carry, so I doubt you're going to find any kind of connection.

[Purple]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. I know Americans are against gun control let alone baning firearms and the whole "self defense" rhetoric. I also know the whole story about how guns will be there anyway etc. But just out of curiosity. What would happen if you did not ban gun ownership but made separate and very difficult to acquire permits to actually carry said guns out into the street? That way anyone can have his rifles for hunting or home defense or what ever. But anyone with a gun out in the open wold immediately raise eyebrows (especially with law enforcement) thus reducing his chance of surprising anyone let alone committing violent gun crime. At least the random kind.

Am I making any sense with this or is it crazy?

It's not exactly relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry ... ted_States

Take a look at the map, and guess which states have the most gun crimes. It's evenly split between permissive open carry and restrictive open carry, so I doubt you're going to find any kind of connection.

The idea I had thou was to make the permission extremely difficult (read: almost impossible*) to get. As opposed to just needing a background check or something.

*alternatively: possible only on paper but not in practice due to the purpose designed bureaucracy

[Broomstick]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. I know Americans are against gun control let alone baning firearms and the whole "self defense" rhetoric. I also know the whole story about how guns will be there anyway etc. But just out of curiosity. What would happen if you did not ban gun ownership but made separate and very difficult to acquire permits to actually carry said guns out into the street? That way anyone can have his rifles for hunting or home defense or what ever. But anyone with a gun out in the open wold immediately raise eyebrows (especially with law enforcement) thus reducing his chance of surprising anyone let alone committing violent gun crime. At least the random kind.

Am I making any sense with this or is it crazy?

Please do recall that not ALL Americans are against gun control. In fact, a vocal minority would like to ban/control them as thoroughly as, say, the UK or Australia. US gun control laws are also a patchwork of Federal, state, and local laws ranging from very free about guns to (until a recent supreme court decision) de facto bans for civilians. So, in a sense, this experiment has already been done.

The result? A city-wide ban isn't big enough. For several decades Chicago had a de facto ban on ALL guns for civilians. It still had a lot of gun crime. For one thing, some of the surrounding areas were very loose with the gun control laws (such as the state/county where I live, which borders Chicago). There were (and still are) a lot of handed-down guns that have been in families for generations, passed from one person to another, and never registered.

Even if you could institute your proposed new level of control over a wide area that's not enough - you somehow have to remove the guns already there, an unknown number of which just aren't on the radar.

Now, if you did that you'd certainly reduce (though not eliminate) gun crime. However, Americans, even with guns available, also regularly commit mayhem with other weapons, some of which are distance weapons (such as the crossbow I own) or mass causality weapons (home made bombs). Some crimes that would have been committed with guns will thus still occur, but with different weaponry.

Would the overall murder rate go down? Debatable, naturally. Despite the plentiful supply of weaponry and recent publicized events the average murder rate in the US has been going down in recent years (though this year may be a blip upward, haven't checked yet). The overall trend is less killing, even with guns. If the murder rate drops after new gun controls is it a continuation of the trend, or due to the tighter controls?

[General Zod]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. I know Americans are against gun control let alone baning firearms and the whole "self defense" rhetoric. I also know the whole story about how guns will be there anyway etc. But just out of curiosity. What would happen if you did not ban gun ownership but made separate and very difficult to acquire permits to actually carry said guns out into the street? That way anyone can have his rifles for hunting or home defense or what ever. But anyone with a gun out in the open wold immediately raise eyebrows (especially with law enforcement) thus reducing his chance of surprising anyone let alone committing violent gun crime. At least the random kind.

Am I making any sense with this or is it crazy?

It's not exactly relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry ... ted_States

Take a look at the map, and guess which states have the most gun crimes. It's evenly split between permissive open carry and restrictive open carry, so I doubt you're going to find any kind of connection.

The idea I had thou was to make the permission extremely difficult (read: almost impossible) to get. As opposed to just needing a background check or something.

You don't actually have to ask permission to open-carry in open-carry states. I think you misunderstand how it works.

[Col. Crackpot]

Not to be a dick, but does N&P have to be geek equivalent of the newspaper police blotter?

So post other stuff?

No, but jeez, is every murder of more than one person at a time N&P material? Seems Like it lately.

[General Zod]

Not to be a dick, but does N&P have to be geek equivalent of the newspaper police blotter?

So post other stuff?

No, but jeez, is every murder of more than one person at a time N&P material? Seems Like it lately.

Are we going to have this conversation every time a shooting thread comes up? Because this is deja vu for the third time.

[Grumman]

Am I making any sense with this or is it crazy?

It is crazy. The police aren't going to catch these lunatics in the seconds between them taking a gun out of their car and them starting shooting.

[Rogue 9]

It's not exactly relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry ... ted_States

Take a look at the map, and guess which states have the most gun crimes. It's evenly split between permissive open carry and restrictive open carry, so I doubt you're going to find any kind of connection.

The idea I had thou was to make the permission extremely difficult (read: almost impossible*) to get. As opposed to just needing a background check or something.

*alternatively: possible only on paper but not in practice due to the purpose designed bureaucracy

No court would go for it. A permit system that is effectively a ban would be legally treated as a ban as soon as it got in front of a judge.

[TheFeniX]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask something that has been on my mind lately. I know Americans are against gun control let alone baning firearms and the whole "self defense" rhetoric.

I know very few people "against gun control." Actually, I know of none. I doubt you'll find many people who are against laws that keep firearms (or any dangerous weapon really) out of the hands of violent felons, people with mental disorders, etc.

What would happen if you did not ban gun ownership but made separate and very difficult to acquire permits to actually carry said guns out into the street? That way anyone can have his rifles for hunting or home defense or what ever. But anyone with a gun out in the open wold immediately raise eyebrows (especially with law enforcement) thus reducing his chance of surprising anyone let alone committing violent gun crime. At least the random kind.

Sounds like Texas if you replace "open carry" with "concealed carry" and "very difficult" with "not stupidly arbitrary" like other states with "may issue" carry laws. Open carry is a stupid concept unless you're A. Law Enforcement/Military or B. expect to run into something non-human and need to sling a .357/.44/whatever because those are fuck-hard to conceal.

That said, open carry isn't exactly hurting anything because no one with criminal intent is going to fuck around with it, even if it's legal for them to do so before they commit the crime. It attracts attention and that's not what they want. They're going to continue jamming .38 revolvers into their waistbands and dumping them into the river or on their dealer/friends after a crime is committed.

[mingo]

Another fallacy of the OP's: the idea that because the guy was "ex-military" he would naturally have weapons at home. Perhaps he thinks that weapons issued to servicemembers go home with them on discharge like their uniforms. Sorry no. Soldiers do NOT get to take home the rifles, pistols and other weapons they used on active duty. Most often, under non-combat circumstance people don't have custody of weapons except when they're USING them. SOME folks bring home captured enemy weapons, but over the years, regulations on that have become stricter. It's my understanding that in order to keep and enemy weapon these days, it has to be rendered inactive. Bottom line vets get their guns the same place civilians do, at the gun store.

[General Zod]

Another fallacy of the OP's: the idea that because the guy was "ex-military" he would naturally have weapons at home. Perhaps he thinks that weapons issued to servicemembers go home with them on discharge like their uniforms. Sorry no. Soldiers do NOT get to take home the rifles, pistols and other weapons they used on active duty. Most often, under non-combat circumstance people don't have custody of weapons except when they're USING them. SOME folks bring home captured enemy weapons, but over the years, regulations on that have become stricter. It's my understanding that in order to keep and enemy weapon these days, it has to be rendered inactive. Bottom line vets get their guns the same place civilians do, at the gun store.

That's not a fallacy, by the way. That just means I wasn't aware of that particular bit of info. But saying it's "another" fallacy means I supposedly made more, and I don't see anyone pointing out anything else.

[His Divine Shadow]

My little pet theory is that this is the fallout from the media furor over the aurora shootings, as where most of those other shootings that followed. I guess I see it like memes spreading and infecting people.

[Zixinus]

My little pet theory is that this is the fallout from the media furor over the aurora shootings, as where most of those other shootings that followed. I guess I see it like memes spreading and infecting people.

I have to post this:

[Broomstick]

The idea I had thou was to make the permission extremely difficult (read: almost impossible*) to get. As opposed to just needing a background check or something.

*alternatively: possible only on paper but not in practice due to the purpose designed bureaucracy

No court would go for it. A permit system that is effectively a ban would be legally treated as a ban as soon as it got in front of a judge.

Chicago tried that. The Supreme Court declared it in violation of the US constitution.

[Zaune]

No, but jeez, is every murder of more than one person at a time N&P material? Seems Like it lately.

If we've got to the point where previously law-abiding citizens walking into their place of work or some shopping mall or cinema or whatever and just opening fire for no particularly good reason is too commonplace to merit a N&P thread, something has gone seriously fucking wrong with the human race.

[Col. Crackpot]

No, but jeez, is every murder of more than one person at a time N&P material? Seems Like it lately.

If we've got to the point where previously law-abiding citizens walking into their place of work or some shopping mall or cinema or whatever and just opening fire for no particularly good reason is too commonplace to merit a N&P thread, something has gone seriously fucking wrong with the human race.

Considering that half a million people a year a murdered globally per Wiki (2000 statistics) yes, there is and always has been something seriously fucking wrong with the human race. Considering that the overwhelming majority of murders in the US are poor black kids, there seems to be something wrong with the people of this forum when the only ones that are worthy of discussion and debate are the ones involving suburban, predominately middle class and up people who are predominantly white.
I'm not saying the bias in intentional, but it is clearly there.

[General Zod]

No, but jeez, is every murder of more than one person at a time N&P material? Seems Like it lately.

If we've got to the point where previously law-abiding citizens walking into their place of work or some shopping mall or cinema or whatever and just opening fire for no particularly good reason is too commonplace to merit a N&P thread, something has gone seriously fucking wrong with the human race.

Considering that half a million people a year a murdered globally per Wiki (2000 statistics) yes, there is and always has been something seriously fucking wrong with the human race. Considering that the overwhelming majority of murders in the US are poor black kids, there seems to be something wrong with the people of this forum when the only ones that are worthy of discussion and debate are the ones involving suburban, predominately middle class and up people who are predominantly white.
I'm not saying the bias in intentional, but it is clearly there.

There seems to be something seriously wrong with the people of this forum when they feel a need to hijack every single gun related thread to talk about how other stuff isn't getting talked about.

[Beowulf]

It's not news when a gangbanger in Chicago kills another gang member. It's barely news when one attempts to knock off another gang member, and hits 8 kids in a park instead.

Banning open carry would have done nothing about this. Nutcase goes home, grabs rifle, sticks it in the trunk, and then drives to his work pulls it out of the trunk, and shoots people. At 4am. No one's going to see him up the rifle in the car, and when t comes out, it's too damn late anyway. But it's something, and something must be done, so let's do it, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The point I think is that shootings like this are statistically irrelevant, there's no good way to prevent them that is politically viable, whereas black kids shooting each other in the ghetto is something which could be easily remedied by an aggressive President with the appropriate interventionist policies, which would vastly reduce the gun murder rate in the US without completely alienating rural people from the democratic party. Gun control has been the bane of the democratic platform for decades. States like North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, used to be PROGRESSIVE in the US, supporting the Grange Party, Farmer-Labour, Progressive Party, etc, and coalesced into some of the strongest New Deal states. When the democrats decided to apply programmes needed to solve inner city problems to the entire country, they started losing that incredibly progressive and militant support.

You may dismiss them as being a small minority of the US population, but the problem of course is that in our constitutional system, those little 900,000 people flyover states produce two senators each, just like California and Jersey, and also each one has at least three and usually four electoral votes. They matter collectively. The loss of the Northern Plains States which were once a home of leftist progressivism was one of the noteworthy failures of the US democratic party, and it came about as a result of implementing programmes intended to help the urban ghetto population which were applied across the rest of the USA which didn't need those programmes. The result was a massive amount of resentment, and then when small farms started to die enmasse during economic troubles, without any government intervention to support them in turn, the democrats basically abandoned four to six states to the republicans without a fight.

Gun control helped cost those states to the republicans, it's a historical fact they were highly progressive and aren't anymore, and the issue will continue to alienate rural voters in swing states and make it easier for republicans to win them. If you want to make America a better place, you have to drop gun control from the democratic party platform and instead focus on targeted city-only programmes to reduce violence and poverty, while focusing on small farm revival of ecologically sustainable agriculture (which is different than fat subsidy checks to Con Agra Foods, which is pretty much what we do now) and government run banking and insurance for rural areas being reoriented to support all rural dwellers as well as operating farmers.

[Tritio]

Doesn't anyone think that the solution should be to ban all guns for civilians?

[Channel72]

Considering that half a million people a year a murdered globally per Wiki (2000 statistics) yes, there is and always has been something seriously fucking wrong with the human race. Considering that the overwhelming majority of murders in the US are poor black kids, there seems to be something wrong with the people of this forum when the only ones that are worthy of discussion and debate are the ones involving suburban, predominately middle class and up people who are predominantly white.

I'm sure most people are vaguely aware that murders consistently take place in the "GHETTO" or whatever - but these murders might as well be background noise, because they simply aren't visible to most people. The media rarely ever mentions them.

I sometimes have to do work in Newark, New Jersey, a city with an extremely high crime rate and ridiculous poverty levels. Parts of it are literally like a third world country. Two years ago, a shooting occurred right across the street from the building where I was working. Out of curiosity, I googled the incident a few days after it occurred. I literally couldn't even find any mention of it on the Internet, and yet I knew it occurred because I heard the gunshots and saw the ambulance and everything. Two people were shot - and there was ZERO media coverage.

So, what do you expect? It's not that there's necessarily some sort of racial predilection here on stardestroyer.net that causes people to prefer stories about white people in suburbia getting shot - it's just that these stories have much higher visibility. There's roughly at least one murder a week on average in Newark, but you'll rarely find individual murders making headlines outside of local papers (if even that).

There's also the fact that, aside from the racial element, there's something more inherently understandable about murders in poverty-stricken areas. Many people living in places like Newark are victims of systemic poverty - they literally grew up with crime, and many of them spend their lives in and out of prison. Most of the murders that occur have specific gang-related motives. In contrast, when someone who lives in an affluent or middle-class suburban neighborhood just randomly starts shooting people, the media is likely to be a lot more interested - not necessarily because of underlying racism (although that is certainly there as well), but mainly because it doesn't make any sense. Viewers will watch in horror, and say "Why did this happen? Oh my God this could happen where I live!" But when they hear about murders in Newark or the South Bronx or whatever, it's just more background noise. It's like hearing about another IED that went off in Iraq.