Police on Alert in the Poconos After CO Shooting

The Stroud Area Regional Police said their number one concern is someone repeating what happened in Colorado in the Stroudsburg area.

[how about some facts]

In a statement, officials at the Stroud Mall said:“Our prayers go out to the victims and members of their families in this tragic situation. One of our top priorities is to provide our customers, retail partners and employees with a comfortable, convenient and enjoyable shopping experience. Rest assured we have security policies and procedures in place, although we are not in a position to discuss these policies.”

Translation: "Please don't think twice about coming to our movie theaters, we need your money."

All of these government and law enforcement officials and business spokepeople continue to trot out their statements of sympathy for the victims. After every mass murder, the same rhetoric is repeated, over and over. If they really did care about the alarmingly frequent occurrences of this type, then finally, an intelligent discussion of gun laws and gun control can occur. Loose Stool mentioned in another thread that as far as gun violence in this country is concerned, the genie is out of the bottle. He is 100% correct, and that is all the more reason that business as usual, protected by the 2nd amendment, need to come to an end in our nation. Because the genie is out of the bottle, there is no easy answer, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't be pursued. Thousands of people are dying every year in the USA because of our archaic worship of weapons and the strongarming tactics of the NRA, which is nothing more than a chamber of commerce for the firearm industry.

[loose stool]

Yes lets look at some facts:
http://reason.com/blog
quote:
"There is no consistent association between gun crimes and easy access to guns or the right to carry. Crimes such as Loughner’s (Giffords shooting) are so bizarre and rare that there is no sense in trying to craft laws aimed at preventing them. Despite constantly expanding gun ownership—the number of new firearms entering American possession averages around 4 million a year—and expanded rights to legally carry weapons, the last two decades have seen a 41 percent decline in violent crime rates. Since the 2004 expiration of the "assault weapon" ban, murder rates are down 15 percent. Many pundits have tried to explain Loughner’s crimes by citing Arizona’s “loose” gun laws, including the lack of permit requirement for concealed or open carry. It's true that Loughner exercised his right to carry without a permit, but he would doubtless have carried the gun even if he was violating the law doing so..."

The numbers do not support greater gun control

[how about some facts]

loose stool wrote:

Yes lets look at some facts:
http://reason.com/blog
quote:
"There is no consistent association between gun crimes and easy access to guns or the right to carry. Crimes such as Loughner’s (Giffords shooting) are so bizarre and rare that there is no sense in trying to craft laws aimed at preventing them. Despite constantly expanding gun ownership—the number of new firearms entering American possession averages around 4 million a year—and expanded rights to legally carry weapons, the last two decades have seen a 41 percent decline in violent crime rates. Since the 2004 expiration of the "assault weapon" ban, murder rates are down 15 percent. Many pundits have tried to explain Loughner’s crimes by citing Arizona’s “loose” gun laws, including the lack of permit requirement for concealed or open carry. It's true that Loughner exercised his right to carry without a permit, but he would doubtless have carried the gun even if he was violating the law doing so..."
The numbers do not support greater gun control

How many dead Americans would it take to make the support of greater gun control worth our time and trouble?

[loose stool]

how about some facts wrote:

<quoted text>
How many dead Americans would it take to make the support of greater gun control worth our time and trouble?

Well probably a whole lot more, given I like said, the numbers of "dead Americans" is dropping yearly.(no pun intended) And gun laws are generally loosening up. I won't let you frame the debate as being for or against "dead Americans" That's a straw man argument.
By your reasoning I could argue we lower the speed limit to 55mph to save lives. How about 25 or 10? Better yet we should all be walking. Think of all the lives YOU would save if only you stop driving that SUV!
Of course we need cars and we need guns and it's not your prerogative to dismiss the reasons why (we need guns), unless of course you want to go down that slippery slope of things we need and things we don't. I know my neighbor doesn’t need that subwoofer so much.
Your argument is based on an emotional response with some expectation that "there oughta be a law" passed and that law is some absurd notion that all guns will suddenly disappear. This guy was squeaky clean. What "gun control" law would of prevented this, short of an absolute ban? Oh wait? Did you say control but meant ban? Don't lie.
You're not grasping the fact that guns are owned by 99.9999999% law abiding citizens and they aren't marching to the village common to beat their guns into plowshares anytime soon.

[slush]

I'm sure mayor Bloomberg would challenge those made up figures.

[AunieEm2]

slush wrote:

I'm sure mayor Bloomberg would challenge those made up figures.

Mayor Bloomberg challenges rational thought.

[AunieEm2]

how about some facts wrote:

<quoted text>
How many dead Americans would it take to make the support of greater gun control worth our time and trouble?

The gun control we already have doesn't stop criminals from having them. Apparently criminals have little respect for the law.Who knew?

When the Supreme Court loosened up the DC gun laws crime went down.It wasn't that long ago. How did you miss it?

If you were a criminal would you pick an unarmed victim or an armed victim?

[loose stool]

slush wrote:

I'm sure mayor Bloomberg would challenge those made up figures.

Why do you have such a hard on for Bloomberg? As usual you are the most ignorant,opinionated, and laziest poster. You know we have a scoop law in NYC. I wish that law was broad enough to include the piles of shit you walk away from.
Here are some facts. Really if you knew anything, you'd of known the rate of violent crime has been going down.
Department of Justice,41% decline
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_0...

Article about 15% drop in murder rate:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257026...

[Larry in VT]

HASF, I have said this many times. When the Gambino crime family, the Crips, the Bloods, the Latin Kings, etc all voluntarily turn in their guns, then maybe, possibly, you could think about talking to me.

Taking away guns from law abiding people won't stop the violence. It will increase it. And you know that as well as I do. Criminals won't prey on someone who is strong, they will prey on the weak. And if criminals know you have no defense that emboldens them.

Here in very liberal Vermont crime is very low. We have among the most lax gun controls in the country. I can carry a concelaed weapon in public with no recourse. Or permit. Vermont is a very well armed state. And gun crimes are very low. In 2009 there were ZERO gun related murders in Vermont. Zero. You see, no criminal is going to enter a home where they could be shot.

Taking away a solid, respectful person's gun will not lower crime. Never has, never will. But it will make people "feel" safe. Even though the very opposite is the reality.

[AunieEm2]

And the guy falsely accused instantly?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/...

[loose stool]

I will go a step further.
Gun Control: White Man's Law
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_w...
"All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people...."

[AunieEm2]

loose stool wrote:

I will go a step further.
Gun Control: White Man's Law
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_w...
"All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people...."

Good read. Thanks.

[how about some facts]

AunieEm2 wrote:

<quoted text>
The gun control we already have doesn't stop criminals from having them. Apparently criminals have little respect for the law.Who knew?
When the Supreme Court loosened up the DC gun laws crime went down.It wasn't that long ago. How did you miss it?
If you were a criminal would you pick an unarmed victim or an armed victim?

Hi Auntie, again I ask, what is the acceptable number of Americans shot to death that we are willing to accept as a society before we change the rules? Disarming the nation would be impossible, leading to civil war in my opinion, and yes it would be unconstitutional. It is not an option. But something has to give here - touting reductions in crime is little comfort to the thousands who are still being shot to death every year. It amazes me that the issues of gun proliferation only seem to take on a sense of urgency after major events such as the Colorado shootings, when in fact mass murders account for only a small percentage of gun deaths. Why is it OK for us to be picked off one by one on a daily basis, and then cite statistics that it is happening less often? If ever there was a case for zero tolerance, this is it. Years ago, Chris Rock did a standup routine about gun control and suggested that the guns weren't the problem as much as the ammunition was, and proposed that bullets should cost $5,000 each. He may have been on to something there.

[AunieEm2]

how about some facts wrote:

In a statement, officials at the Stroud Mall said:“Our prayers go out to the victims and members of their families in this tragic situation. One of our top priorities is to provide our customers, retail partners and employees with a comfortable, convenient and enjoyable shopping experience. Rest assured we have security policies and procedures in place, although we are not in a position to discuss these policies.”
Translation: "Please don't think twice about coming to our movie theaters, we need your money."
All of these government and law enforcement officials and business spokepeople continue to trot out their statements of sympathy for the victims. After every mass murder, the same rhetoric is repeated, over and over. If they really did care about the alarmingly frequent occurrences of this type, then finally, an intelligent discussion of gun laws and gun control can occur. Loose Stool mentioned in another thread that as far as gun violence in this country is concerned, the genie is out of the bottle. He is 100% correct, and that is all the more reason that business as usual, protected by the 2nd amendment, need to come to an end in our nation. Because the genie is out of the bottle, there is no easy answer, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't be pursued. Thousands of people are dying every year in the USA because of our archaic worship of weapons and the strongarming tactics of the NRA, which is nothing more than a chamber of commerce for the firearm industry.

As a gun owner I have never worshipped weapons. Do you worship inanimate objects? This is still a somewhat rural area. There are many uses for guns. There have always been guns in the house of rural societies. Until recently they were rarely used against their fellow man.It is unfortunate that we must rethink the purpose of our guns but coddling the criminal element has put us all at risk,especially the elderly and other at risk populations.Is it your position that we should not be able to protect ourselves?

[AunieEm2]

how about some facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Auntie, again I ask, what is the acceptable number of Americans shot to death that we are willing to accept as a society before we change the rules? Disarming the nation would be impossible, leading to civil war in my opinion, and yes it would be unconstitutional. It is not an option. But something has to give here - touting reductions in crime is little comfort to the thousands who are still being shot to death every year. It amazes me that the issues of gun proliferation only seem to take on a sense of urgency after major events such as the Colorado shootings, when in fact mass murders account for only a small percentage of gun deaths. Why is it OK for us to be picked off one by one on a daily basis, and then cite statistics that it is happening less often? If ever there was a case for zero tolerance, this is it. Years ago, Chris Rock did a standup routine about gun control and suggested that the guns weren't the problem as much as the ammunition was, and proposed that bullets should cost $5,000 each. He may have been on to something there.

I think the root cause lies much deeper than guns or ammunition.They are merely tools like any other tool. Until you admit the wrongheaded policies that have erased or blurred the lines between right and wrong in our population and your part in it, the violence will only grow. What made this shooter? He seems to have had all the benefits denied to so many others. He isn't your usual criminal is he? His mother seemed to know but didn't do anything about it? Another enabler making excuses for the wrongs?

[AunieEm2]

As to how many Americans need to die, They are targeting the wrong people. Very few would need to die if the targets were the people promoting the violence and decadence. I'm not suggesting that they do but it makes more sense than killing innocents.

[Shirley]

AunieEm2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the root cause lies much deeper than guns or ammunition.They are merely tools like any other tool. Until you admit the wrongheaded policies that have erased or blurred the lines between right and wrong in our population and your part in it, the violence will only grow. What made this shooter? He seems to have had all the benefits denied to so many others. He isn't your usual criminal is he? excuses fHis mother seemed to know but didn't do anything about it? Another enabler making or the wrongs?

What do you know that nobody else knows? Shame on you for saying his Mother seemed to know but didn't do anything about it?
Were you there the last few years of the suspects life? Did his parents try to get help for him if there was a problem? He was an adult and they had no control over his life.JUst annoys the hell out of me when people like you say it's Moms fault,lets put the blame where it belongs,right on the suspect.My heart breaks for his Mother,Father and family as this must be a nightmare for all of them.And to all the victims I can't imagine how they will deal with this in the coming years.

[loose stool]

Shirley wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you know that nobody else knows? Shame on you for saying his Mother seemed to know but didn't do anything about it?
Were you there the last few years of the suspects life? Did his parents try to get help for him if there was a problem? He was an adult and they had no control over his life.JUst annoys the hell out of me when people like you say it's Moms fault,lets put the blame where it belongs,right on the suspect.My heart breaks for his Mother,Father and family as this must be a nightmare for all of them.And to all the victims I can't imagine how they will deal with this in the coming years.

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/Colorado-shooter...
You should google before you shoot.(no pun etc.)

[Shirley]

loose stool wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/Colorado-shooter...
You should google before you shoot.(no pun etc.)

Yes I heard that as well as the whole world,so what's your point? Hyde?

[loose stool]

Shirley wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I heard that as well as the whole world,so what's your point? Hyde?

No Jekyll.
Before you jump down someone's throat you might consider the fact you're the Queen of idle speculation (AKA Zimmerman).

It's an odd thing to say when you're informed your son is suspect in a mass murder rampage. Maybe Mommy breast fed too long or not long enough.