Police disable devices in gunman's bag after fatal shooting at mall in Maryland

Where do these nutjobs keep getting guns at?

Better question; What was his problem and how could he consider such a permanent and violent act?

This gun is what vice president Biden suggest we have for self defense.

...hunkered down in a Victoria’s Secret lingerie store.

If I had to hunker down in a mall, that would be my shop of choice.

So far early reports are now saying it was the woman's ex-boyfriend that shot her dead, one has to wonder if he was planning a much larger shooting as he was carrying a lot more equipment and ammunition.

" Better question; What was his problem and how could he consider such a permanent and violent act?"

Agreed. That's the pertinent question. Another is ; Why are people so quick to exact violence with so little respect for human life? Could it be societal acclimation to violent acts observed in various media and decades of ongoing wars?

Both perfectly pertinent questions. Another would be the glorification (and really, no other word captures its hallowed position in American society) of guns. Their simple utility for self-defense, as Biden noted, is quaint. Open carry is the story of the day, and requirements from townships that all "patriotic" citizens ought to own guns. There are more guns floating around America than there are people.

Adding that to the ease which guns provide to facilitate both homicide and suicide and a pertinent question is, why would an otherwise relatively sane culture accept such idiocy?

a pertinent question is, why would an otherwise relatively sane culture accept such idiocy?

Dead-end military action in all parts of the world, a higher rate of its own citizens incarcerated than any other country in the world, refusal to provide health care to all despite a very advanced level of technology....otherwise relatively sane??

Sadly, it seems it's just par for the course.

Adding that to the ease which guns provide to facilitate both homicide and suicide and a pertinent question is, why would an otherwise relatively sane culture accept such idiocy?

Because they find the recreational benefits outweigh its cost is the most likely reason. Same with Alcohol, in the US more people die from Alcohol each year than from all gun deaths and deaths caused by cars combined. The death rate from Alcohol in the UK is higher than the gun death rate in the US, same is true with Australia.

If everyone had guns this guy never would have been able to shoot anyone, because we all know that the general public going about their business is a quicker draw than a guy going out with the express purpose of murdering people. Right? ...right? um... right?

more people die from Alcohol each year than from all gun deaths

People who drink to excess kill themselves. Gun deaths tend to be perpetrated on other people.

One drink isn't going to do much damage. One bullet on the other hand....

Because they find the recreational benefits outweigh its cost is the most likely reason.

That is a viewpoint, yet those who hold it should not grieve over the militarization of American police forces. Alcohol may necessitate traffic checks, which are a nuisance at worse; the ubiquity of high-powered firearms necessitates that all policemen view the questioning of any citizen as potential life-threatening events.

Complaints by gun-rights advocates about the increasingly armed and aggressive American police force are hypocritical.

People who drink to excess kill themselves. Gun deaths tend to be perpetrated on other people.

So? How does that make the death toll or just the death in general more necessary to society?

What would be an unacceptable death toll per capita rate for something that people do to themselves that is completely unnecessary? For me I would say 50 per 100k.

The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides, a significant portion of homicides in the US are committed by people who are intoxicated by Alcohol, the CDC estimates that about 30-40% of all homicides in the US are committed by intoxicated people, a lot of people who drink to excess are very violent.

If the gun lobby don't shoot us, they'll bore us to death.

Why bother even saying anything? Nothing will change. Just hope you're not the one in the mall/school/whatever when it happens next.

I think it's quite sweet in a way that some think that they will be able to fight off the largest ( by an enormous distance ) most technologically advanced, nuclear armed military in the world in the event of the government turning tyrannical with what they picked up at the local gun shop. Too many movies and delusions of heroism I think. Kawaii.

For the anti-self-protection lobbyists,

" According to the authors of Cato Institute’s recently released study on how often guns are used by citizens to prevent crime, “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.” In a study of more than 5,000 news reports over an eight-year period, Clayton Cramer and David Burnett showed that the mere presence of an armed citizen thwarts many crimes, even beyond those that are reported by the police and subsequently printed in the newspaper."

From:

http://lightfromtheright.com/2012/02/27/guns-self-defense/

The article includes links to the data.

Fear of the unknown has long been a tool of the controlling class used against the uninformed masses. The solution is to get informed BEFORE coming to your conclusion. That may mean abandoning one's pre-conceived view.

Certain people love to deride gun ownership in general, and gun owners vociferously, but when you need immediate protection from someone who means you or your family harm, waiting for a hero to arrive to rescue you is precious time wasted.

Again, what this ex-boyfriend of the first victim did to her and others is horrific, and he will face judgement by the Creator (for those of religious proclivity ) and is no longer a danger to the living.

Whether he killed with a firearm, machete, or sabotaged brakes is irrelevant. Those are only the means of committing the heinous act of premeditatively murdering.

What would be an unacceptable death toll per capita rate for something that people do to themselves that is completely unnecessary?

Noliving (and what an ironically sweet name!), try telling that to this perpetrator's ex-girlfriend. If he'd shot himself in the head without harming others, that would have been one thing. Leave a few beers lying around the home and you might end up with some intoxicated kids; leave a loaded gun lying around and you'll end up with dead ones.

In the almost seven months since Adam Lanza’s demented slaughter of 20 Sandy Hook Elementary first-graders and six adults, at least 40 more children age 12 and under have died from accidental shootings across the United States, according to data compiled by the Daily News. Those numbers do not include children killed by adults. Add those tragedies in, and about 120 innocents ages 12 and under have been killed by guns since Newtown.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guns-120-kids-newtown-article-1.1391208

But what the heck - they're just kids. If guns didn't kill them, alcohol or al-Qaida probably would have. (In the latter case, of course, America would probably be pissed off.)

" The price regular Americans pay for the people who are too stupid to realize they could never win against their government, is that people get shot while shopping, while at school, while at work, while driving, while sleeping, while eating, and while doing pretty much anything."

Jimizo, I can accept that that is your opinion. I won't call you stupid, directly or indirectly as you did. However, you owe it to yourself to read the report I mentioned.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

It was me who wrote that.

But how does that report change anything about what I said? People too dumb to realize they could never overthrow their government, which has a military the size of the next 20-something militaries combined, force others to pay the price that they can't do things like waking up, or going to school, or going to the mall, without being at risk of being shot. Nothing in that report changes that fact.

Yes, I mistook the moniker.

It doesn't take the entire population to effect change. Especially when the military themselves revile DC.

Have you read the report?

I skimmed through it.

Again, nothing in it changes what I said.

Skimming a text doesn't convey its content. Ought to actually read it before simply disregarding it.

Readers, please focus your comments on what is in the story.

“We do not know yet what caused the shooting incident,” he said.

Try this on for size:

A sick society that supports killing people in another country simply so they can save a few cents when the fill up their tanks.

A sick society that supports illegally detaining and torturing people (even citizens of their own country) because it is kept in a permanent false state of paranoia and fear by its own government.

A sick society that supports that government (the one that is so blatantly and obviously manipulating them) even when their crimes are exposed to the public... and instead calls for the head of the messenger (I'm getting at the Snowden case here if you're finding it hard to follow).

A sick society that fools itself into believing that the rich got that way because of hard work... rather than backroom deals, and off the sweat of better men.

In a sick society like this it is inevitable that the value of human life will be degraded to less than nothing. I could go on and on about the delusional nature of U.S. society and its common myths, but suffice it to say that adding free access to guns to the mix is a deliberate part of the agenda that keeps Americans cowering under their beds at night hugging their assault rifles while the U.S. government does whatever it wants in your name.

It is very sad, but appears to be the demented actions of a jilted lover. This happened at an American mall but could have happened anywhere. And murder-suicides do happen other places as well, just with less media coverage than the U.S. can provide.

This idiot killed his girlfriend ( mother of his child ). I still love you honey....BLAM.

Noliving (and what an ironically sweet name!), try telling that to this perpetrator's ex-girlfriend.

Already have: For me I would say 50 per 100k.

Pay attention next time. So lets get back the question that was directed at Cleo but you seem to be willing and able to answer. What is an unacceptable cost for something that is completely unnecessary that people do to themselves? Alcohol kills anywhere between 85,000-100,000 people each year in the US, per capita of around 25-30 per 100k.

Do you believe Laguna that the lives of 85,000-100,000 people each year is an acceptable cost for recreational drinking?

Leave a few beers lying around the home and you might end up with some intoxicated kids; leave a loaded gun lying around and you'll end up with dead ones.

Statistically it is the opposite, you are more likely to have a room with dead ones caused by alcohol poisoning than you are to have a room with dead ones caused by firearms.

But what the heck - they're just kids. If guns didn't kill them, alcohol or al-Qaida probably would have. (In the latter case, of course, America would probably be pissed off.)

Hit a nerve did I? Over 1,400 children die from Alcohol poisoning each year in the US, are those children's lives an acceptable cost so that people can engage in recreational drinking?

People too dumb to realize they could never overthrow their government, which has a military the size of the next 20-something militaries combined, force others to pay the price that they can't do things like waking up, or going to school, or going to the mall, without being at risk of being shot. Nothing in that report changes that fact.

In terms of budget you would be correct but in terms of man power size the Chinese military is larger. Also the Chinese military budget is basically quadrupling every 10 years. So within the next decade the budget will be basically equivalent to the US in terms of what they can buy.

The people actually could overthrow their government. The US military has around 1.5 million active troops and an additional 1.5 million in reserves. Take that number and spread it across the world in bases across 100+ countries than spread it across the 3rd/4th largest nation in the world. The US military is too widely spread to handle a mass uprising by the American population. Lets say the Metro area of NYC was to go into rebellion and lets say 10% of them were to take up arms, that would be nearly 1.9 million people taking up arms, and lets say they were to attack Washington D.C. Do you honestly believe Washington D.C. would not fall to 1.9 million people?

Lets say 10% of the metro population of Chicago was to take up arms, about 900,000 people, and attack the US Navy boot camp facility just north of the city, do you honestly believe that facility, which is the only boot camp for the Navy, could hold off 900,000 people?

Lets say 10% of the metro population of Minneapolis-St.Paul was to take up arms, about ~380,000 people, and attack Camp Ripley. Do you honestly believe they could not capture Camp Ripley?

Keep in mind that during the American war of Independence it was estimated that about 25% of the Colonies population took up arms.

I think the population could in fact beat the military but it would require sizable force and it would require them willing to take casualties. The truth of the matter is that the US military is too small and too thinly spread out across the US and the world to honestly be able to win a conflict by a mass uprising by the population.

And if everine had been armed with M-16s then they could have shot this fool nice and dead before he comitted suicide, right??