Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Several Dead In Southern California Shooting Spree

TUSTIN, Calif. (AP) -- A chaotic 25-minute shooting spree through Orange County early Tuesday left a trail of dead and injured victims before the shooter stopped and killed himself, police said.

There were at least six crime scenes, Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino told KNBC-TV.

The shootings started with an apparent carjacking just after 5 a.m. Tuesday in an unincorporated Ladera Ranch area of Orange County, said Tustin police Supervisor Dave Kanoti.

From 5:30 a.m. to 5:55 a.m., Tustin police received police reports of shootings in several locations, he said.

Officers found one dead person and one wounded at State Route 55 and McFadden Street, two shot and wounded at Interstate 5 and Red Hill Avenue, and one dead at Del Amo Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The alleged shooter then drove to the intersection of Wanda Road and Katella Avenue and shot himself in the middle of the intersection, Kanoti said.

The conditions of the wounded victims were unknown.

It is possible more people were shot at because some people may have chased the shooter, Kanoti said.

A spokeswoman for the California Highway Patrol said they didn't have any active crime scenes on the freeway but the southbound 55 McFadden Avenue off-ramp would be closed until further notice.

Kanoti said authorities were trying to figure out if the spree started with the fatal carjacking but could not yet confirm that.

Tustin is about 35 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 19, 2013 at 11:50 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Dang, if only California had strict gun control laws...

Oh wait...

But, but, but... he used a military style semiautomatic assault weapon right?

No? Well... ummm....

I'M SCARED ANYWAY!!! BAN EVERYTHING!!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really123'

Really123 | February 19, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Yes Anon11, ban everything, that's what all people are saying. Oh wait! Only the right is saying that. The left is saying ban only assault type hardware. But with a semiautomatic one could allegedly shoot thier girlfriend through the bathroom door fourty times rather than four. Sign me up fo twenty! EEEHAW! Shouldn't you be looking to move to Texas? They came a-look'n for ya'll.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 19, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Can you define 'assault-type hardware' in legal terms?

What is a semiautomatic and what are the alternatives?

What type of gun is used in most murders? How would the assault weapons ban affect this?

Do you support disarming the police like they do in Europe? Why or why not?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 19, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Nice try "Anon", but cherry-picking your way out of the mess that is gun-laden America won't work on anyone with even a low-moderate IQ.

We have laws saying minors shouldn't drink, but some do anyway. By your logic we should have no drinking age?

We have laws saying people shouldn't rape, yet some do anyway. Get rid of that too?

The faulty logic of the gun-obsessed right-wing is pathetic.

No law can ever ELIMINATE something completely.

But laws can DECREASE incidence of things, including gun crimes.

I find it deplorable that the NRA and their groupies turn every blood-drenched violent gun tragedy into some twisted call for more saturation of unregulated firearms.

You people are simply MAD.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 19, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

( )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | February 19, 2013 at 3:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Anon,

For the most part, European police are better armed and equipped than their US counterparts. You're probably thinking of England which has kept a tradition of unarmed police since the 1800's.

My feeling is either ban all weapons or none at all. What sense does it make to ban just the scary looking ones? I would prefer to live in a country free of guns, but that is impossible in the US.

Sadly, it seems the only solution is to arm everybody.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 19, 2013 at 3:38 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

We didn't ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines because they're scary, we banned them because they're capable of greater damage. Gun control policy doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing approach, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc. Let's ban assault weapons to protect against high-casualty massacres for the time being, while continuing to work toward a more generalized gun ban and/or stricter gun regulations.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 19, 2013 at 6:20 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Virginia Tech shooter had 2 handguns and took down 32 people. At the time, it was the deadliest school shooting ever.

Handguns kill more people than rifles every year.

You're not solving any problems, you're placating the fear instilled by the media.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 19, 2013 at 6:55 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Gun control policy doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing approach, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc."

We have already done that. It is already illegal to own the most dangerous weapons. The observation that criminals continue to use the most effective weapons available to them does not lead to the conclusion that further restrictions on non-criminals would change that.

We know police need assault wepons and high capacity magazines to deal with criminals (or has someone called for magazine size restrictions for cops and I haven't noticed?). All of us who need to deal with criminals should be able to do so with the best tools for the job. Since we do not have police everywhere preventing crime, but rather in a few places responding to crime after the fact I should be able to use those weapons as well. If I misuse it, nail me to the wall. Until then, let me be.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Really123'

Really123 | February 20, 2013 at 7:21 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

benz, do you think citizens should be as well armed as police? should police be better armed? or should citizens be better armed?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 20, 2013 at 9:07 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

ANON11, how did YOU vote on Prop 19???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 20, 2013 at 9:29 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Anon11, how do your facts about Virginia Tech and handgun deaths do anything but support my feeling that all guns should eventually be banned but we should focus on banning the ones more capable of mass murder first? If that's not an attempt to solve this problem, what is? (Let me guess: "there's no problem.")

"We have already done that. It is already illegal to own the most dangerous weapons."

Correct. We have done it, but are no longer currently doing it. The federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. I guess I'm not sure what "most dangerous weapons" you're talking about, since nuclear weapons aren't legal, but AR-15s are. Neither should be, since civilians require neither. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

"The observation that criminals continue to use the most effective weapons available to them does not lead to the conclusion that further restrictions on non-criminals would change that."

Actually, a more accurate observation is that criminals use all kinds of guns. And because a lawful gun owner becomes a criminal the moment they commit a crime (a moment that cannot necessarily be predicted), then absolutely it is a reasonable conclusion to restrict gun ownership for everyone. This is why we have gun control policy in place. So, again, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you arguing against any sort of gun control policy at all?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 20, 2013 at 9:33 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

I love freedoms and rights. I also see the need for smart regulation. Whether it's guns or drugs.

In fact, the gun control crowd reminds me a lot of the drug control crowd... and we all know how well the war on drugs worked.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 20, 2013 at 9:49 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Ilk,

Your prioritization of 'mass murder weapons' does not make sense, considering many more factors go into determining how lethal a weapon is than just the shape. My example of Virginia Tech was to show evidence that handguns have the potential to be deadlier than a rifle.

Your attempt at solving a problem is short-sighted. Throughout human history, violence has existed. It's not a problem we can solve by banning a select group of weapon features. It's like fighting a war on drugs to get rid of them. It doesn't work.

An unarmed society is never what America was intended to be. What made us unique was our individual rights, including being able to arm yourself. I hate when this argument is used, but I feel it may be appropriate here; If you want to live in an unarmed society, consider emigrating.

As far as the Assault Weapons ban expiring, that's just one piece of law (and a poorly written one, imo). We can't own tanks, bombs, grenades, bazookas, fully automatic guns. That is what I'm talking about when I say "most dangerous weapons".

Let me remind you that you have no authority, nor should you, on determining what sort of firearm would best defend my family and my property. Just like you don't get to tell gay people who to love and marry, you have no business telling me how to live my life. Go live your own. You don't see the need for an AR? Don't get one. Stay out of other people's business! How hard is that? What's the saying... "don't hate me for my freedoms".

Oh, by the way, when you say:

"Actually, a more accurate observation is that criminals use all kinds of guns. And because a lawful gun owner becomes a criminal the moment they commit a crime (a moment that cannot necessarily be predicted), then absolutely it is a reasonable conclusion to restrict gun ownership for everyone."

It's like saying all men are lawful until the moment they commit rape (a moment that cannot necessarily be predicted), so it's reasonable to restrict men from having genitals.

Brilliant.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 20, 2013 at 10:02 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"It's like saying all men are lawful until the moment they commit rape (a moment that cannot necessarily be predicted), so it's reasonable to restrict men from having genitals."

Is that because penises are used to kill, or because guns are part of human bodies?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 20, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

You just said we should restrict ownership/use of something that can potentially be used in the commission of a crime. My analogy uses the logic you laid out.

Your follow-up question doesn't make any sense.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 20, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Anon11: "I love freedoms and rights."

Including the right of those who choose NOT to be armed to walk down the streets of our own country without fear of being shot to death?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | February 20, 2013 at 3:44 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Ilk,

You still have not convinced me that there is a reason to ban assault weapons. A skilled marksman with a common handgun is capable of far more damage than an unskilled kid with an AR-15.

Also, why do you say civilians don't require assault weapons? For the vast majority of America's history, civilians commonly used the same weapons as US soldiers.

Why are civilians now placed below soldiers?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 20, 2013 at 5:26 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Including the right of those who choose NOT to be armed to walk down the streets of our own country without fear of being shot to death?"

I don't think you understand. You're responsible for your own emotions. You don't get to control other people instead of dealing with your own problems.

I mean, where do you draw the line? Do you say everyone has a right not to be fearful of anything, so we ban everything that anyone is fearful of? It's not feasible.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 20, 2013 at 8:15 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"You still have not convinced me that there is a reason to ban assault weapons. A skilled marksman with a common handgun is capable of far more damage than an unskilled kid with an AR-15."

OK, well, no one's been able to convince me that they should be legal. "Because the Second Amendment" is the reason I hear most often, but just cause the founding fathers found something necessary for that particular place and time doesn't mean it should be interpreted the way it's interpreted in 2013. I feel quite strongly about that. And yeah, I agree about the marksman and the handgun. I'm for banning those too if you are? I mean, why else would you bring up how much damage he could do?

"Also, why do you say civilians don't require assault weapons? For the vast majority of America's history, civilians commonly used the same weapons as US soldiers. Why are civilians now placed below soldiers?"

I say that because civilians don't live in a war zone like soldiers do. A lot of things today are very different from the majority of America's history, including those pertaining to guns: the types of guns manufactured, the number of guns around, and all sorts of cultural, demographic, socioeconomic factors.

As for why civilians are placed "below" soldiers - what's new? They've always had more rights than us civilians, including the right to kill their enemies without claiming self-defense. They just have to be in the right place at the right time.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 21, 2013 at 7:13 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Ilk, I would recommend you discuss your view of the relationships between soldier and civilian rights with a few soldiers and try to understand their perspective. Those soldiers aren’t ‘killing their enemies without claiming self-defense’, they are fighting (and sometimes killing) OUR enemies. A soldier who kills his personal enemy is a murderer, just like you would be.

Also, there is an established process for changing the constitution and its amendments (as evidenced by the 21st amendment). If you truly believe that my 2nd amendment rights should be removed, please attempt to pass another amendment to do so. I think you will find that your opinion does not hold the broad support you believe it does.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 21, 2013 at 10:03 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"OK, well, no one's been able to convince me that they should be legal. "Because the Second Amendment" is the reason I hear most often, but just cause the founding fathers found something necessary for that particular place and time doesn't mean it should be interpreted the way it's interpreted in 2013. I feel quite strongly about that. And yeah, I agree about the marksman and the handgun. I'm for banning those too if you are? I mean, why else would you bring up how much damage he could do?"

Why should it be legal? It's in the Constitution. Don't like it? We have a process to amend it.

See, the big difference between freedom and control is that freedoms give people choices. No AR for you? No problem. I have mine.

Control on the other hand, gives no choices. No AR for you? No problem. But I can't have one either because you're scared of them.

See the difference? You get what you want no matter what. Why you feel the need to control other people's lives to placate your own emotions is beyond me. That's like the adult version of throwing a tantrum.

I refer back to my first comment:

I'M SCARED ANYWAY!!! BAN EVERYTHING!!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 21, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

AL ANON 11, how did you vote on Prop 19?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 21, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Well thanks, but you didn't really need to remind me the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. I mentioned it in my last post.

You also didn't need to clear up the difference between freedom and control for me. Personal liberties aren't always good, and laws protecting the general welfare aren't always bad. It's always been legally and ethically complicated to balance the two when making policy. Sorry, libertarians, that's just the way it is.

It's unwise to think in black and white and believe that an individual's actions never, ever have any effect on anyone around them whatsoever, until all the sudden they do. Reality's not that simple.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 21, 2013 at 11:39 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

MA, I already answered that.

What is the point of answering your same questions if you're not going to read and comprehend what I answer?

It's like you're asking the same questions trying to get me to slip up so you can pounce on it, instead of presenting facts and knowledge and letting that drive the discussion forward. I don't appreciate shady tactics like that. If you're not here to potentially learn something, then take your propaganda to msnbc or fox.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 21, 2013 at 11:45 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Haha, I guess "driving the discussion forward" includes making awful rape analogies.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 21, 2013 at 11:54 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Well thanks, but you didn't really need to remind me the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. I mentioned it in my last post."

You said no one has convinced you gun ownership should be legal, yet you know the right to bear arms is in our constitution...

"You also didn't need to clear up the difference between freedom and control for me. Personal liberties aren't always good, and laws protecting the general welfare aren't always bad. It's always been legally and ethically complicated to balance the two when making policy. Sorry, libertarians, that's just the way it is."

You are right that it is a delicate balance. But to overturn the freedom of people to defend themselves, because some people abuse it, doesn't make sense. Should we lose our ability to drive because other people get DUIs? Should your home be searched because your neighbor got in trouble?

You have to be logically consistent, no matter how much guns scare you. Free Americans shouldn't have to give up important rights to coddle your fears.

You can argue that guns can be used to commit crimes, but so can human genitals (rape). Do you believe we should restrict genitals too? Your demonstrated logic says so. That's how ridiculous you sound.

You have the freedom to own a weapon or not. I'm not taking away that freedom from you. You're taking it away from me. Horribly anti-American.

"It's unwise to think in black and white and believe that an individual's actions never, ever have any effect on anyone around them whatsoever, until all the sudden they do. Reality's not that simple."

Nobody said that. Quit trying to justify taking away freedoms and replacing it with controls. Nobody likes people with control issues. Go live your own life, and try to get over your irrational fears.

dgu dot reddit dot com

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 21, 2013 at 11:55 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Haha, I guess "driving the discussion forward" includes making awful rape analogies."

Valid analogy. A potential tool used in a crime. You want to restrict ownership/use based on that potential. You can laugh it off, but it doesn't make it any less true.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 21, 2013 at 12:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

It's a terrible analogy to make because 1) unlike guns, penises are not weapons and 2) unlike guns, penises are a feature of the human anatomy. A more reasonable person might use knives or rocks for their analogy, but nope - you go straight to rape. Move that discussion forward, bro!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 21, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

The precursor to rape is sexual ASSAULT. Parts of the human body can certainly be weapons.

It demonstrates the flaw in your logic. Same as the other analogies I made that you conveniently ignored.

If you could acknowledge the inconsistency in your logic, we could move this discussion forward. But you can't even *follow* the rules of debate. I don't know why you think you are qualified to *create* rules for society?

Show me facts, not fear mongering. What evidence do we have that banning certain types (or even all) guns is going to result in the conclusion you claim? We have seen similar policies applied to drugs, and REAL LIFE has shown us that it is an utter failure. Why doesn't this resonate with you?

It's not even about guns. It's about a person's individual right to life, defense, and personal choices in general. Your proposed ban doesn't even affect you, so it certainly is easy for you to promote. Taking away other people's choices is ANTI-AMERICAN. When people shoot other people, it is a crime and still will be. You can't punish people before they commit a crime. This isn't Minority Report.

This is a basic American principle. You have to grasp that first and foremost.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | February 21, 2013 at 2:37 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"I say that because civilians don't live in a war zone like soldiers do. A lot of things today are very different from the majority of America's history, including those pertaining to guns: the types of guns manufactured, the number of guns around, and all sorts of cultural, demographic, socioeconomic factors." -Ilk

===

Civilians don't live in war zones? Have you ever visited an inner-city neighborhood in New York, Chicago, or LA?

Cultural, demographic, and socioeconomic factors? Please, tell us what relevance that has to the ownership of a gun.

Also, if you are in favor of civilians being equal to (or above) soldiers, then you should wholeheartedly support assault weapon ownership.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 21, 2013 at 6:35 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Civilians don't live in war zones? Have you ever visited an inner-city neighborhood in New York, Chicago, or LA?"

I have, but I get the feeling that's not what you're really asking. I assume the point you're trying to make is that because there are high rates of gun violence in these neighborhoods, there should be... more guns in these neighborhoods? Or less gun control? Or that no laws can ever change anything? Or something like that? Guess I'm not really sure what your point is. But you asked why civilians are "now" placed below soldiers as a response to my saying that soldiers have a special right to shoot and kill more types of people than do civilians. And they get a special type of gun to do it, too. But a soldier's just a civilian that's been certified by the Army, and the victim just has to be designated by the government authorities as an enemy of the state. Then the murder becomes heroic. So... does that answer your question?

"Cultural, demographic, and socioeconomic factors? Please, tell us what relevance that has to the ownership of a gun."

The United States population in 2013 is more urbanized, more mechanized, and more numerous than it was in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted to the Constitution (and remember, the intent was to allow a well-regulated militia to fight off the redcoats with muskets). Because of these changes in the American population over the last 222 years, there are now more people living in a denser environment around more guns that are now more efficient at doing their job (shooting people to death) than there were in 1791, and guns are now a greater threat to the peace and welfare of Americans than they are a threat to potential invading forces (redcoats with muskets).

"Also, if you are in favor of civilians being equal to (or above) soldiers, then you should wholeheartedly support assault weapon ownership."

I'm not the one concerned about this. You are. Remember? I said that soldiers, not civilians, should be allowed to have the military weapons, meaning semiautomatic assault rifles like AR-15s. Then, in response, you asked me why civilians are "now placed below" soldiers, by which I assumed you meant the right to shoot and kill a bunch of people with a high-powered semiautomatic rifle. So I told you they always have. Civilians don't have to the right to do lots of things soldiers can. So, again, I don't have a problem with this, and it's got nothing to do with gun control anyway.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Crolley40'

Crolley40 | February 22, 2013 at 3:29 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

About ten years back, in a Denny's restaurant at Grand Ave. PB around.. 10p.m I was drowsy sitting and leaning on the table, a guy (while I didn't notice) dashed a cup water into my face (murmuring like a slur-like homeless chink or something) and ran out and I chased him but missed.. I wasn't in a nice mood then since I had to stay overnight there. Who knows if I had a gun then, if an evil spirit engulfed me, I can't say it was impossible I could make a tragic mistake in that situation..
Luckily I didn't have any gun or weapon then, and the outrage I felt didn't last too long. After a while I had wiped my face and calmed down, didn't feel too bad. If a person isn't a character of firm faith (not being furious easily that's very hard!), you never know what will get you into trouble from instant ill decisions..

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 22, 2013 at 7:42 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

C40, if you have significant doubts about you ability to control anger or proportionally respond to incidents like that then perhaps you are better off without a firearm. That is really for you to decide.
It does not imply that some incredibly high bar of self control is required to refrain from shooting offensive people over relatively minor incidents. For example, if the person in the scenario you described had been an off duty police officer, armed with a service pistol would you have expected the incident to end in a shooting?
I do not share your doubts about an implied generic inability to understand the appropriate use of deadly force.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Doug_R'

Doug_R | February 22, 2013 at 10:13 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

The belief that the banning weapons will make society safer is irrational. The city with one of the most restrictive and recently ruled unconstitutional restrictions on firearms, Chicago, is still one of the most violent cities in the US with rampant gun violence. As many have heard before, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results." We had the national assault weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban for 10 years. During this time NIJ funded a study on the effectiveness of ban and continued to study the effects after the sunset of the ban, they concluded that the ban had no effect of crime. But leave it to liberals to want to try the same solution to a problem that was not effective before, even when told by the research they funded.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 23, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Here's a book about guns in America that I hope to read soon.

http://www.danbaum.com/Nine_Lives/About_Gun_Guys.html

Excerpt from a review:

"The real story of Gun Guys, though, is that of social class. Baum sees his fellow liberals' pursuit of gun control as an evasion of bigger truths concerning social and economic inequality. In sizing up the liberal penchant for equating violent crime with the simple circulation of firearms, Baum asks, "How much more convenient was it to ignore the totality of the lives lived by young black urban men - the group most likely to die by gunfire." But as Baum notes, black perpetrators and victims of gun violence aren't the ones who make gun control impossible. That group would be "the partially educated, rural, middle-aged guys in the bulge of the gun-guy demographic who hadn't seen a real wage increase since 1978." These are the men who rail against the media even though it's mostly on their side, who loathe politicians although they almost uniformly do the gun lobby's bidding, who respond to the real crises of their lives - lost jobs, lost houses, and the broken families that so often follow, "the cloud of indignities" that mark life in the downwardly mobile middle class - with the purchase of an AR-15 and the solidarity of the shooting range.

Sad? Yes. But crazy, no. There's a "scaffold of logic" around the obsession with guns in this subculture, Baum writes. "When community is no longer an option, individual sovereignty becomes an illusion of last resort. Is the media to blame? Sure. And the banks, too, "free trade" and the evisceration of American manufacturing, the collapse of labor and the rise of the big-box stores that replace mom-and-pop gun shops, which had stocked their cases with beautiful eccentricities of "deeply grained woods" and steel "knurled with an eye to artistry." By contrast, Walmarts now teem with "vast ranks of coal-black plastic," ugly Glocks, and absurdist AR-15s, the weaponistic equivalent of a Big Mac - cheap, deadly, and weirdly satisfying.

It's that last bit that explains why we have guns. Not because of their simple availability or lethality - but because there is a pleasure in the rituals of gun ownership and the act of discharging weapons and the stories we tell about them."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 23, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Awesome, an author's opinion instead of facts. Why is nobody surprised?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 25, 2013 at 7:23 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Ilk, I can't comment on what research went into the statements you quote, but of the dozens of gun owners I personally know, that description does not fit one of them.
Is it possible the author may be describing a specific subset of some population or do you think he intended to describe American gun owners in general? If the later, I'm afraid his characterization misses the mark fairly widely.

I am not claiming that there are not gun 'nuts'. There are also car 'nuts' and football 'nuts' and many other varietals. Describing a broad cross section of a population by the traits of a select few can lead to significant error. Not all automobile drivers are DUI offenders, nor are all football fans riotous hooligans.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 25, 2013 at 8:05 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Sorry R123, I missed your direct question earlier.
I believe that anybody trying to defend themselves from crime should be as well armed as they can reasonably be. If you were going to confront an armed intruder in your house, wouldn't you want that?
Police should have the weapons they need to confront criminals. So should private citizens who often need to deal with those same criminals until the police can arrive.
I would not accept the argument “You don’t need a chainsaw because you aren’t a professional lumberjack” any more than I would the commentary about reserving (some or all) firearms for police. Private citizens sometimes need to fell either trees or criminal and they should be using the most effective tool for the task. If one of those citizens starts hurting the public with that tool (either the firearm or the chainsaw), punish him and take that tool away from HIM. Don’t declare that the tool is too dangerous to be used by anybody.

Does that answer your question?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 25, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Then you are totally inconsitent if you support our holy crusade on drugs while arguing for guns because "criminals will get them anyway." And you lose all credibility.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 25, 2013 at 12:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Al Anon 1.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 25, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

I support freedom of choice for personal drug use, as well as treating it as a health issue (and not a criminal one).

I support freedom to bear arms, as granted by the 2nd amendment. I support the freedom to choose how to defend your home and family.

My ideologies are consistent.
Freedom of choice.

Don't hate me for my freedoms. If you are personally opposed to something, exercise your freedom of choice and don't participate in it. Protest it if you really want to. But don't take away other people's freedom to choose. That's horribly anti-American. Just be an adult, deal with your own emotions, and leave other people alone. Don't turn them into criminals for making personal choices.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bigdprender'

bigdprender | February 25, 2013 at 6:10 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Urban dwellers know all to well what would happen if the rural 2nd Amendment blowhards got their way and fully armed all citizens. While back country wingnuts would increasingly shoot each other in the foot, seriously violent urban crimes would skyrocket. It's a total lack of understanding of each other's worlds that's at the heart of this. Few understand what is an appropriate compromise, what should be tolerated in each environment and which solutions go in search of problems.

Sadly, many, like the NRA, paint it in black and white terms to scare buyers right into the next gun shop, whereby your deficient manhood gets fluffed and the NRA succeeds in pushing more sales.

The idea that the common man should have the right to be as heavily armed as a policeman or military soldier is one of idiotic proportions. Only those with appropriate training and permits should have such rights. Everyone is entitled to protect themselves - that's not going away - I don't care how many Alex Jones rants you listen to. Arming yourself for the next apocalypse should be a privilege afforded, not to anyone with a fat, insecure wallet, but to those who can do it responsibly.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Crolley40'

Crolley40 | February 26, 2013 at 4:30 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

I used to live near Mcfadden & Beach blvd for several years (it was called Midway city then also near Garden Grove), and Little Saigon where I also would eat at a Vietnamese noodle restaurant, and commuted to H.S and later to OCC Costa mesa, and would hit the beach along that Harbor corridor, not by hwy 55 though, and rode frequently in that section of Katella Ave. (or blvd) I saw in more occasions in that vicinity broadly surrounding that OC communities, as Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Tustin, even up to Seal beach, fountain valley, and perhaps not beyond S. OC that had more benign manner concerning motorists attitude, even beyond to where Knott's berry F is located, cars were running like in race ('rage' will be a fine substitutue in this exp.) exchanging such deragotary slurs and in general not respecting one another. What this has to do with this gun incidence? Well, I was just thinking of educational level or etiquette so to speak for those residing in this area.. (please do not feel offended if you do live in these districts) that might be somehow reflective of this gun crime.

Just wanted to post some of excerpts I left pbs comment line relating gun violence because I liked the guy analoguing justification of ubc to that of fishing license requirement. I also couldn't agree more to a professor of psychiatry (not sure her position) interviewed in the program, suggestion more number of counselors are needed in school sites. (and I conveyed a little bit of my thought that, if more parenting role, and other non specialized staff members as academic advisors can assit students in such roles more times than now.
Here are some of those recent comments but it might not work due to post length limitation// (It appears too greedy and talkative posting more than two at the most as I felt that way last commenting..) in fact, you can say I'm wasting my time -_-
I can't find/ here's short version=>I was issued a ticket for not having a fishing permit in S.Laguna (Aliso pier) and Fish&wildlife wardon made me pay $95 for that first violation. The original penalty was $640 or around that .. (I'm not lying to you guys..!) Thanks magistrate!
I wasn't fishing on that pier (No license required fishing public pier) but was rock fishing some distance away from there.. caught two opaleyes and one barred surf perch.. But that was not the reason he cited me.. Whether you keep or not, it requires you to have a permit anyway..

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 26, 2013 at 7:29 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Bigdp, if your primary concern is really training then please explain why you think personnel who were trained to use those weapons by the armed forces or police would not be allowed to posses them privately under many of the proposals being submitted. I have that qualification, heck, I'm still on active duty and CA has made it very difficult for me to get my AR-15. Why should that be? Do you believe the training is somehow lost at separation?

This whole issue smacks of hoplophobia.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 26, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Urban dwellers know all to well what would happen if the rural 2nd Amendment blowhards got their way and fully armed all citizens. While back country wingnuts would increasingly shoot each other in the foot, seriously violent urban crimes would skyrocket. It's a total lack of understanding of each other's worlds that's at the heart of this. Few understand what is an appropriate compromise, what should be tolerated in each environment and which solutions go in search of problems."

Zero facts presented. All stereotypes and speculation. The right to arm yourself isn't a mandate, it's an option.

Here's a fact for you: Most violent gun crime happens in urban areas with strict gun laws (like Chicago), and most of that crime is committed with handguns, not rifles.

"Sadly, many, like the NRA, paint it in black and white terms to scare buyers right into the next gun shop, whereby your deficient manhood gets fluffed and the NRA succeeds in pushing more sales."

Not everyone who believes in the 2nd amendment supports the NRA. I don't understand why you drag in political groups when you can just argue the facts.

"The idea that the common man should have the right to be as heavily armed as a policeman or military soldier is one of idiotic proportions. Only those with appropriate training and permits should have such rights. Everyone is entitled to protect themselves - that's not going away - I don't care how many Alex Jones rants you listen to. Arming yourself for the next apocalypse should be a privilege afforded, not to anyone with a fat, insecure wallet, but to those who can do it responsibly."

Again, you bring in Alex Jones for what reason? To try to discredit people by lumping them in with him because certain parts of certain opinions overlap? You're a snake.

This is why it's frustrating trying to argue for freedom in America. Because so many people are concerned with trying to win instead of coming out of the situation with the optimal solution.

When FACTS show you gun crime is highest in the places with the strictest laws, and that the guns that would be banned (if the Feinstein legislation passes) are responsible for less than 4% of murders, it's time to rethink your approach to how this all works. When your theories are put into practice and they fail, maybe you should let someone else try.

So many people willing to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of security. Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bigdprender'

bigdprender | February 26, 2013 at 11:10 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Your idea of security is living in a police state. Fine. Go live in Texas with your so-called liberty and get a job at Walmart while the rest of us participate in a civil, educated society...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 26, 2013 at 11:11 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Anon11, did you know that calling a fellow commenter a "snake" is a personal attack, and that personal attacks are forbidden by the KPBS Community Discussion Rules? It's also a poor way to move the discussion forward.

Sorry you're so frustrated trying to argue for freedom in America.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 26, 2013 at 11:46 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Bigp, What is it about armed private citizens that you equate with a police state? Those seem like very different ideas of control to me. Police stated are generally VERY strict about private ownership, a policy I see as more in line with some of the most restrictive proposals being promoted by people seeking to disarm private citizens. When gun control is pursued as a national agenda how is moving to Texas isn't likely to help any of us maintain that particular liberty? Are you advocating Texas secede from the United States?

You may also find your claims to civility taken more seriously if you refrain from defaming others. Shouldn’t we all try being polite and discussing the issue rationally?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 26, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Can anyone name one major gun manufacturer CEO?

I have come to realize that the NRA is paid to be the lightning rod for gun manufacturers.

And it works.

Love him or hate him, you know who Wayne LaPiere is.

And that's exactly how the big gun tycoons like it.

They can remain hidden behind the curtain while funneling money to the NRA to do all their dirty work for them.

The number one purpose of the NRA is to keep gun industry profits high. Period.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 27, 2013 at 11:32 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

AL ANON, that's good enough for me, but the truth is the vast majority of your gun rights advocate and Second Amendment types are the biggest War on Drug warriors in the country! Every time they open their mouths to spout "criminals will still get guns," they've already lost the argument.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 28, 2013 at 6:58 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

MA, I had that impression about a decade or so ago as well, but the more people I talk to about either of these subjects the less comonality I see. I hope this is a result of more people examining their own opinions rather than some kind of sample bias because I'm discussing topics with people who are a little older.

PDSD, That is not why I am a member of the NRA.

And to calibrate that test you proposed, do you think most people can name the CEOs of Ford, Procter & Gamble, Westinghouse or McDonalds? I expect their relative anonymity is much more a result of apathy on the part of the public than obfuscation on the part of an interest group. A quick Google search can get you those names if you care to find them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bigdprender'

bigdprender | February 28, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Might as well have some fun with the wingnuts whose irrational arguments are past the point of no return.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | February 28, 2013 at 10:32 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Might as well have some fun with the wingnuts whose irrational arguments are past the point of no return."

You didn't even present any facts. You just attacked people. If anything, you're the wingnut with irrational arguments.

America = Freedom = Bill of Rights = 2nd amendment. If you want to live in an unarmed society, go to England. If you want to live in America, stfu and mind your own business.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | February 28, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Might as well have some fun with the wingnuts whose irrational arguments are past the point of no return."

I generally agree, but it just gets so old so fast.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 28, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

An irrational argument can be shown to be irrational. Otherwise what is being described is an opinion.
Take care not to mistake a strongly held belief for a self evident fact.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 28, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Benz, yes of course you can find the names of any CEO on Google, that wasn't my point.

My point is that unlike the auto-industry, food industry, etc., the gun industry has succeeded in singularly funneling the majority of their corporate aims through one organization.

One man, in fact.

The point I was making is that you DON'T need to look on Google to know who Wayne LaPierre is.

He has taken the singular role of gun spokesperson, and I have not heard anyone in the gun industry complain so I am assuming they all agree with his messages that everything BESIDES guns is the reason for our country's violence problem.

It's pretty funny how Mr. La Pierre sees no problem slapping restictions on the video game industry, mental health industry, and any others he can grasp at, but when it comes to encroaching on the industry HE and his bennefactors profit from even the most minor and REASONABLE reforms are completely off the table.

I am curious, why are you a member of the NRA?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 28, 2013 at 3:32 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

The gun industry reminds me of the Tobacco industry decades ago when they claimed their products had no role in public health.

They, like the NRA, thought ANY reform no matter how sensible and minor to be a "slippery slope" for those who want to ban their products.

Decades later, endless legal challenges later, and, most unfortunately, many, many premature deaths later the gun industry not only admits what their products do, they slap warnings illustrating it on their packaging.

I realize this is not a completely synonymous comparison because we don't have a constitutional amendment that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean people have a constitutionally protected right to smoke, but I do think the comparison is strong enough to make an educated argument that, despite what the NRA says, we can enact many reasonable gun reforms and that does not mean people will lose their 2nd amendment rights.

You can still light up a cancer stick if you so choose, even with all the restrictions put on cigarettes.

The reforms being thrown around now (banning assault weapons, banning large magazines, mandatory background checks for all gun sales) are not even close to paving a way for "banning guns" like the extremists claim.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bigdprender'

bigdprender | February 28, 2013 at 5:35 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Not to mention there's a huge segment of the population that defines freedom and liberty as owning a business, driving a fancy car, raising children, attending PTA meetings, crying about big government, letting your dog do his thing on your neighbor's lawn, etc. The list of freedoms is endless and most of them have little to do with the 2nd amendment. Certainly there's been times in our history when there were stronger connections to gun ownership. But the days of the wild wild west are long gone. So stop pretending that more guns in high crime areas will be a panacea. Or that guns are wanted or needed in uneventful suburbia.

The fact is that guns make some people feel safe while they make others uncomfortable. That's a fact you can put in your pipe. But when you blatantly ignore it, you're no longer relevant in the conversation.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bigdprender'

bigdprender | February 28, 2013 at 5:53 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Bigdp, if your primary concern is really training then please explain why you think personnel who were trained to use those weapons by the armed forces or police would not be allowed to posses them privately under many of the proposals being submitted. I have that qualification, heck, I'm still on active duty and CA has made it very difficult for me to get my AR-15. Why should that be? Do you believe the training is somehow lost at separation?"

I think I would have heard that complaint from my highly trained and educated friend in the reserves by now. That would be backwards...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 28, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"I'm still on active duty and CA has made it very difficult for me to get my AR-15. Why should that be? Do you believe the training is somehow lost at separation?"

Umm, why would you need a weapon like that in a non-combat environment?

Not for hunting.

That's for MASS-KILLING.

I don't care how trained you are, that doesn't mean you should take war weapons out of their intended environment.

Someone trained to work with giraffes at the zoo can't put a herd in their backyard.

A doctor doesn't need an operating table in their kitchen.

Why does a soldier need an assault rifle when not on the job??

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 1, 2013 at 8:45 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Lots of questions, OK...

Why am I a member of the NRA?... To prevent what I consider to be unreasonable restrictions on firearms ownership from becoming law.

re: slippery slope & extremism, There are certainly people who are calling for banning, just like there are people who are calling for lifting all restrictions. Since we can still have reasonable disagreements about the intent of the authors of the 2ndA and since there are currently lots of people who claim that it no longer should apply I'm not sure how you see there being no danger of a slippery slope infringement of rights. What bright line are you seeing that I am missing? For instance, if this legislation passes and there is no change in gun violence do you foresee the proponents of the legislation saying 'well, we tried but that is as far as we can reasonably go, I guess we'll have to accept it as it is'?

Why would I need a weapon like that (AR) in a non-combat environment?
Well, there is a two part answer to that. 1) When one or more intruders break in and the use of deadly force is justified I would define that AS a combat environment.
2) ARs, especially the carbine versions, are well suited to fighting inside houses. That is the most likely scenario for me to have to employ a weapon. Why would you not want the best tool for a dangerous job?

Why does a soldier need an AR when not on the job? You may not be aware of this, but there are differences in the functionality of military arms and civilian versions of those models. The best example is a burst selector switch. The civilian version is strictly semi-auto, while the issued version has an enhanced capability. Now, if you have trained on a specific model to the point of high proficiency why would you chose a separate model with very different characteristics for personal use? Why not uses something very similar to the one you have invested a lot of time learning?
The difference in fire rate between a civilian AR-15 and any other semi-auto is negligible. Features like synthetic foregrips and adjustable stocks that distinguish most sporting models from most ARs do not alter the core function of the weapon. They do make it much more familiar to millions of shooters, improving operation.

As to your other analogies, would you prohibit a doctor from setting up an operating table in his kitchen or a large animal vet from owning a giraffe if they were not misused, well cared for, etc.? If so, why?

All of this is beside the point though. It isn't the place of the citizen to prove to the government that he needs something that is protected, it is the place of the government to prove that he is unworthy to have it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 1, 2013 at 2:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

benz, I may not always agree with you, but I do appreciate your civil, well-thought out discussions.

I admit I am not up on my "gun lingo," but generally speaking I believe protecting one's home is a legitimate reason to own a simple gun, like a pistol or rifle.

I just don't feel that multi-fire magazine weapons are appropriate for civilians not in combat to own.

The scenario you describe above made it sound like a mini-war breaking out inside your home. While that is possible, it is definitely rare, and accidental "friendly fire" deaths form firearms outweigh the number of "bad guys" killed robbing houses.

It would seem that unless your house was robbed by an entire gang of thugs all with automatic weapons, a simple shotgun should suffice for protection.

If you add up all the suicides, friendly-fire accidents, and murders, they add up to far more deaths than do burglars getting shot burglarizing.

We all know the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution to mean individuals have a right under the highest law of the land to own a gun. With this, why on earth would you think restrictions would lead to banning guns if there are some suggesting we should implement a ban?

I gave the example of tobacco above. Cigarettes have been regulated vigorously, and yet people still have retained the right to smoke - and there is NOT constitutional protection specifically for cigarette smoking which means guns would be even harder to "ban" even if regulated.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bigdprender'

bigdprender | March 1, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Interesting that someone would choose an AR as the top tool for in-house security. I would think either handgun (easier storage and quick access) or a shotgun (makes up for sloppy aiming).

More interesting that people claim the NRA is a freedom fighting organization.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | March 1, 2013 at 5:45 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

> multi-fire magazine weapons

That makes no sense. Rifles are all semi-automatic. One trigger pull = one shot. Same as most pistols and shotguns.

You obviously aren't an expert on guns or weaponry, so why do you feel your opinion should hold any weight?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | March 1, 2013 at 7:55 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"You obviously aren't an expert on guns or weaponry, so why do you feel your opinion should hold any weight?"

Because I'm an American citizen and care about my country and my as well as the people I care about's safety.

Are those good enough reason for you?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 2, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Thanks PDSD, I also very much enjoy a civil exchange of ideas, though I suppose we are just going to have to continue viewing things from different perspectives.

Bigdp, Your choice is certainly valid for your situation. Please consider that others may have different tactical requirements and training strengths. What is right for you isn't right for everybody.

Anon11, not all rifles are semi-auto. There are a large number of bolt action rifles with significantly slower firing rates, but I believe them to be much better suited to long range engagements than CQB. I would not choose one as a home defense weapon.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon11'

Anon11 | March 2, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

"Anon11, not all rifles are semi-auto. There are a large number of bolt action rifles with significantly slower firing rates, but I believe them to be much better suited to long range engagements than CQB. I would not choose one as a home defense weapon."

Yes, corrected. I knew this but misspoke. I was trying to say, effectively, that no civilian rifles are burst-fire/full automatic.

As for Peking,

"Because I'm an American citizen and care about my country and my as well as the people I care about's safety.

Are those good enough reason for you?"

They're good reasons, but not good enough. Someone with passion, but without knowledge, can be very dangerous. What makes you assume the War on Guns isn't going to backfire like the War on Drugs did? At some point, you have to acknowledge history and human tendencies. It is a way more complex issue than assuming a ban on guns will eliminate them completely and solve our problem with violence. You seriously need to realize this. Good intentions are not the same thing as good ideas.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | March 3, 2013 at 8:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 1 month ago

Didn't mean to be insulting, it's just that there are a lot of people who don't seem to understand the common terminology related to this debate. I generally consider it best to be very specific.

( | suggest removal )

Forgot your password?