Here We Go Again
Another white guy, another legally obtained gun (he was a police officer!), another six senseless deaths. When you count the gunman, the total rises to 7.
When is it going to stop? When are we, as a society, going to open our eyes and grow up? Amazing. Sickening. But “don’t take away my gun”, right? Whatever.
37 comments.
Rivermen, Wild Off To Fast Starts »« Domenici Retiring…Can Dubya And Cheney Join Him?
WPMU Theme pack by
October 8th, 2007 at 9:07 am
BJ, you wingnut, the dude was a COP. Exactly what law would have kept the gun out of his hand?
The shame is that there wasn’t someone ELSE in the Pizza Hut who happened to be armed.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
[...] resident left wingnut BJ Stone, over at Good Year for the Outlaw, thinks that some kind of gun control law would have prevented a cop in Wisconsin from going [...]
October 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Forgive, B.J. He’s a liberal, and when you become a liberal, they kidnap you in yoru sleep and whisk you away to a laboratory where there implant a chip in your brain so that whenever there’s a crime involving guns, you bleat “Gun Control Now!” He can’t help it.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
At least Billy uses his real name.
But be that as it may, the POINT of the post is that this dude “got through the system” to become a COP, and then blew away people. That’s the POINT. I’m sorry, but giving everyone a gun so we can have Old West-style shootouts in the street is NOT the answer, and it really pisses me off that that is the only thing the pro-gun crowd can come up with.
That’s why I say we need to open up our eyes and grow up as a society. BTW, if Illinois is, as the gun-nuts (and you call ME a wingnut…whatever) tell us one of “only two states without conceal and carry”, it’s a pretty safe bet that Wisconsin IS one of the states where it’s allowed. Didn’t help those six people yesterday, did it?
My POINT is the racist crowd in and around Peoria having a field day whenever there’s black-on-black violence in that city with illegal weapons, but their utter silence when it comes to yet ANOTHER mass murder committed with LEGALLY obtained weapons, and in this case, the violence was performed by a POLICE OFFICER.
The system is f’ing broke, boys, and giving everybody a gun is NOT the answer.
Jeezus.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
BTW, how’d the Cubs do Saturday?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
For once I’d love to see a credible debate about gun control to go on. But for a starter, let’s try this…
A) Any weapon in the hands of a nut is going to be bad, ANY. Sure, it would be hard to do mass killings with a knife, but if some nut wanted to kill a bunch of people at once and couldn’t get a gun and really wanted to do it, the answer how to get it done is one click away on the Internet.
So let’s remove nut’s going crazy from this discussion.
B) Let’s take out the “conceal carry” argument too, unless someone can show definitively that a person was actually hampered by this law when trying to stop one of these incidents. For example, let’s say some nut broke into a church quilting session where fifteen elderly women were sewing away. Now, how many of these women does one really think would be carrying a gun if allowed to? In cases like this, concealed carry laws wouldn’t have made a difference one way or another.
C) Throw out arguments like NY City is one of the most violent cities around while have the toughest of gun laws. Yes, this is true, but a recent study showed the majority of guns in NY come from neighboring states with lax gun laws.
So if we want to have a gun debate, let’s do it on the merits (and this is not to lessen the impact of what just happened in Wisconsin).
October 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
BJ wants a pre-crime unit. Tom Cruise unavailable.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
BJ, you are right when you said “giving everybody a gun is not the answer”. “Everybody” should not have a gun, only those who want one and are willing to go through the legal requirements (permits,training etc.) to get one. In my opinion that is better than the other option which would be to take everybodys gun, which we all know would be “everybody” but the criminals who don’t care about any gun laws anyway.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI, 03/29/03
State: WI
David Franklin’s crime spree through a Milwaukee, Wisc., neighborhood was cut short when one of his intended victims produced a gun and shot him. Milwaukee police said Franklin was suspected in six break-ins within blocks of his home. He apparently chose to break into homes where women lived; and if he caught a woman alone, he raped her. If the woman was not home, he would burglarize the house. Women in three of those cases were raped at gunpoint. The tables were turned on Franklin when he broke into a house and the woman resident shot him in the arm. He was arrested at a local hospital after police interrogated him as to how he had been shot.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Yes, when are we going to grow up and open our eyes and see that we cannot legislate every bad thing out of existence. Don’t take away my freedom so that you FEEL (but really aren’t) more secure.
My father in law told me that when he was in grade school, he used to take a rifle to school and keep it in his locker so that he could squirrel hunt either before or after school. I don’t know about many school shootings in the 50s and 60s, do you? Its the people, not the guns.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“as the gun-nuts (and you call ME a wingnut…whatever) tell us one of “only two states without conceal and carryâ€, it’s a pretty safe bet that Wisconsin IS one of the states where it’s allowed. Didn’t help those six people yesterday, did it? ”
Some facts:
1) The 2 states are Illinois and Wisconsin.
2) States with right to carry laws have significantly lower crime rates
3) The Second Amendment protects the rest of the Amendments
4) Chicago outlawed all hand guns, result - 3 less murders the next year
5) Criminals will not and do not obey gun laws
6) If America outlawed the manufacturing, sales, and possesion of ALL firearms, guns would still flow unimpeded into this country (see illegal drugs for reference)
Replying to O’Brien request for debate:
In response to
A) The second Amendment only secures the right to possess and BEAR (show, uncover for use) for those who are peaceable (mentally stable, nonfelons), the only requirements according to the writers of the Constitution.
B) As I stated above, states with right to carry laws have significantly lower crime rates. However, I do not support the conceal carry argument. Instead, I support an open carry law. Imagine if the same person ran into a church and half of the quilters were sporting guns. Or a more likely scenario, a person goes into a gas station to rob it. One or two people AND the clerk have visible weapons on them. Is that person still going to commit the crime?
C) See above for Chicago. When New York did a gun buy back (Peoria has had 2 with donated money, now they are asking for taxpayer money) to rid the streets of guns, hundreds and hundreds of guns were turned in. Not surprisingly, a very, very small percent of the turned in guns were those that could be traced back to crimes that had been commited. Also, not surprisingly to most, home invasions where guns were targets rose at about the same amount as those turned in. You see, criminals will not turn in their guns, but they will turn in your guns.
Most significantly though, Americans have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. These rights have the inherent right of protection. We have the right to protect our Lives, Liberty, and Property. As important, Americans also have certain responsibilities that come along with having those rights (shameless plug: see my sight - post entitled Responsibility…) which most of us conveniently forget. If getting rid of guns is truly the answer people are seeking, then outlaw the PRIVILEGE of driving as it is way more dangerous and kills many more people per year than guns.
Respectfuly submitted.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
The reason we have a Second Amendment is that its writers recognized the need to protect citizens from the power and potential tyranny of government; i.e., an intrusive, coercive government removing us of our rights. While it clearly doesn’t say that explicitly, that was zeitgeist that brought its writers to include the amendment in the Bill of Rights. Bearing arms, in this context, was never intended to be a deterrent against others intending us harm: that was just a fringe benefit.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Stone, you are a completely incompetent fool if you think that stricter laws would have stopped something like this from happening. How can you even say that with a straight face? First, the guy was a cop. So are you proposing that we take firearms away from the police too? Sure thats a great idea. Maybe we can issue sling shots to our law enforcement officers instead, or maybe let them throw rocks at all the gang bangers. I just don’t understand your kind.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN, 08/19/06
Nothing seemed out of the ordinary inside a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant when a man approached the counter and placed an order. But then he demanded of the cashier, “Give me the money before I shoot you.” Initially, Paul Sherlock joined the other customers as they bolted for the door. But then he stopped out of concern for the cashier. He recalled a June 2005 incident in which a carjacker shot at him. That was also the day he decided to buy a gun and apply for a carry permit. Police say Sherlock faced the suspect then pulled out his 9 mm pistol. The suspect put his hands in the air and Sherlock ordered him to lean against a window. Police apprehended the man without incident. The accused’s gun” turned out to be a screwdriver.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I agree with the defenders of the 2nd Amendment … most gun owners are responsible citizens. I have several good friends that are gun owners and hunters, and they handle their firearms with great care and responsibility. Our community is almost certainly safer because those folks are armed.
I also agree with B.J. … I don’t see how turning our country into an Wild West cowboy camp makes us safer. For every responsible gun owner like my friends, there’s an irresponsible redneck that likes to get drunk, kill things and put bullet holes in highway signs. Statistically, a gun in the home is much more likely to be used to kill a member of that household (by murder, suicide or accidental discharge) than to repel a home invader. Also, the idea that a citizen with only minimal firearms safety training could get a conceal-carry permit is scary.
Even scarier is the idea that armed confrontation is an acceptable response to government policies that one opposes. This “militia mentality” makes me nervous. Where does that line get drawn??? A lot of folks preaching that mantra are paranoid Branch Davidian-brand psychos that shouldn’t be allowed a butterknife let alone a firearm.
Anon … I respect the hell out of you, but anecdotes are like assholes. Nothing but s*** comes out of them. They’re the mainstay of charlatans and snake-oil salesman everywhere. Show me the data. I have yet to see any meaningful evidence on this subject, pro or con. Most of the “studies” I’ve seen out there are gobbledegook with confounders out the whazoo. They come from one extreme or the other and are so highly politicized that they’re meaningless.
Scott A … what’s this “your kind” B.S.??? Try making a point without being a condescending ass about it once. Just once. It would be a refreshing change of pace.
Billy … the title of the post on your blog linking to this one is the epitome of what’s wrong with the conservative argument against gun control. This sensational “liberals are coming to take your guns away!” stuff is complete bull crap. I hear it all the time from the N.R.A. along with all sorts of vile, slanderous personal attacks aimed at anyone who even looks sideways at a gun regulation. Where exactly in this post does BJ advocate a complete gun ban??? Your post title is juvenile sensationalism, and you owe BJ an apology and retraction. Next time make an effort to discuss this issue without frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog.
I guess my point in all this is that we’re never going to get anywhere on 2nd Amendment rights, gun ownership and gun control as long as the extremes keep dictating the debate and poisoning any meaningful analysis.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Thanks, KiD, you got the point. And you are correct, I’ve NEVER advocated a complete gun ban. I don’t see the need to personally own one, and I don’t see why anyone would WANT one, but I’ve never called for a complete gun ban. I’ve only said…repeatedly…that the system is broke and arming everyone isn’t the answer. But that makes me a “wingnut” in today’s fervently-violent, war-mongering society we live in. I thought the human race was better than that.
And you took the words right out of my mouth where the anonymous one is concerned. Wow. Two anecdotal stories. Yep, that changed my mind.
Brad, thanks for the clarification. But I guess it stands to reason that the two states who still hold out on this (IMO) ridiculous law are right next to each other. I do, however, have a problem with the “states that have the law…have a lower crime rate” argument. Does that mean Illinois and Wisconsin have a higher crime rate than anywhere else in the country? I mean, the OTHER 48 all have the “conceal carry”, so the only comparison is to Wisconsin and Illinois. And I highly doubt those are the highest crime-rate states in the country.
Or are you saying their crime rates are lower in those 48 states SINCE they made the law? In that case, lower than what? Lower than when? Crime rates across the country went down in the 1990’s, whether or not a state had passed “conceal carry”. Stats can be and are made to skew things in the direction you want. For every website we can find that says crime rates are down because of these laws, I can find “stats” to back up the other side of the argument.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Oh, and it wasn’t Billy who made the post and the headline over at his place, it was Mouse, who hi-jacks Billy’s blog on occasion. Billy is off the hook on that one.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Its never going to stop B.J. as long as there are mentally unstable wackos in the world. Guns don’t kill people, sick metally deranged psychos do. We don’t live in a perfect world. Never have, never will. People have been killing people since the beginning of time. These things, though completely tragic, happen from time to time. There is nothing you or I or any gun law is going to do about that.
The only thing gun laws will do is take weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens, period. Drugs are illegal, but do you think that makes it difficult for criminals to get them? Alcohol was outlawed, and did that keep it off the streets? The answer is a resounding no. What would make you think that gun control would take the guns out of these criminals hands? It never would, and if you can’t see that you are blinded by your own agenda.
And as for you Knight, the “your kind” reference was to B.J. and every other liberal rag who lives in this fairy tale dream land of a perfect society. And I will be condescending anytime I see fit. This opinion of gun control is so ludicrous that it barely deserves the respect I gave it in my first post my friend. I am really not arguing for the concealed carry law, for I dont know how safe I would feel knowing that any old schlub down at the local watering hole could be carrying a weapon. But this belief that Stone has, that gun control will magically make these horrendous crimes disappear is a complete dilusion. God forbid a liberal ever run this great country.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Let’s see, BJ’s digs -
- I don’t use my real name (however, BJ knows me) (BTW, is “Stone” your real name?)
- I am a Cubs fan
- Peoria Pundit is not “my” blog and I am just “hijacking” it from Bill
Somehow you were able to interject racism into the discussion as well. Incredible!
BJ, you are hereby invited BACK to the argument at hand. You say the system is “f’ing broke.” Offer up a realistic solution. Offer up a way that this guy would not have “got through the system”.
As for the anecdotes - I have hundreds (and that is not an exaggeration). I can post more, if you’d like.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Mouse hasn’t hijacked anything. He is among several people I allow to post his/her own entries without prior approval.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
BJ,
My statment “States with right to carry laws have significantly lower crime rates” was a quick point in my comment and sort of a blanket statement for the convienence of speed. I appoligize and I hope I can clear the murkyness up a bit more. Illinois and Wisconsin have the most strict gun laws in the nation. The other 48 states allow for the public carrying of firearms in some fashion or another. For example, some states allow for concealed carrying of weopons, while others allow for open (visible) carry. Some states only allow for conceal carry in a vehicle (in other words, a loaded gun may be in the vehicle), while others require the weopon to be visible in the vehicle. There are many more restrictions in the various states, such as training, and local ordinances. This is very general, because even Illinois and Wisconsin DO allow for open carry, but only in unincorporated areas of counties that have not outlawed open carry. Clear as mud?
Anyway, my point was that states that have the least restrictive gun laws, have the lowest violent crime rates per capita. So the numbers can accurately be compared per capita with Illinois. (Interestingly, Peoria has the highest crime rate in the entire state - http://www.illinoisatlas.com/illinois/crime/pdf/il_county_crime_05.pdf -) However, most but not all, are some of the least populated states. So to be fair, that also needs to be factored into the equation. Also to be fair, some of those states have never had strict gun laws, but the ones that have and lessened the restrictions the data shows crime rates were lowered.
The “the system is broke and arming everyone isn’t the answer” statement is correct. As I wrote before, only peaceable citizens should be allowed to have guns. The part of the system that is broke (IMO) is the lax procecution of the wrongful use of firearms. For instance, last year a neighbor of mine targeted, shot, and killed another person. While awaiting trial, he was on house arrest shooting up and down the street at cars that “forgot” to pay for the drugs he had just handed them. 3 months this went on. Finally, he was convicted of murder in the first degree. His sentence: 8 yrs. That means with a day for a day good behavior and time served (selling drugs, shooting in the neighborhood) he will be back in 3 1/2 years. That is apporximately 2 years from now. When the “gangsta” lifestlye is glorified on TV and in movies and parents aren’t outraged and let their children watch it, when blatant disregard for authority figures (teachers, police, even parents) is taught in the homes, when children go unpunished for small indiscretions and grow up with a mentality that the world owes them something, when little boys have no father figures (any male positive role model) to teach them how to be a real man, these things are also what is wrong with the system. But nobody wants to address the roots of the problems, only the effects of them.
BTW, I would challange that the Old (Wild) West was “full” of shoot-outs in the streets. I would argue that our notion of Hollywood’s version of the Old West is only a very small percentage of what really was happening in that time.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
First, to the Mouse: My real name is NOT “BJ Stone”, but that HAS been my name since the very day I arrived in Peoria (May 28th, 1996) and most people in Peoria know me ONLY as that.
And I’m still scratching my head as to where I “injected racism” into the recent discussion, unless you’re talking about waaayy back in the thread where ? My point there was the silence from the white racist crowd when a white man goes nuts and kills multiple people. My point was how the outcry in the initial 48 hours after Katrina Kelly’s death in Peoria a couple of months ago suddenly quieted when the white racists found out Katrina was black, and killed by a black.
Brad - thank you again for all the info. I agree with you that a big part of the problem is the lax prosecution of existing laws. I also agree with how certain things being glamourized in movies, TV, and music are contributing factors (and don’t forget video games), but my kid has been watching action movies and playing war-based video games for years and he can tell the difference between right and wrong. I can see, however, how kids that aren’t wired quite right would have trouble un-blurring the lines.
I have long thought that we have plenty of REACTIONARY gun laws, we just don’t levy the punishment effectively or properly when we have the chance. We don’t need any more REACTIVE laws, but we could use some better PROACTIVE laws in the system.
The story came out today (yesterday maybe?) that this 20-year old “cop” didn’t have to go through much…if ANY training to get his badge and therefore his gun. He simply “applied” for the job and was willing to work for the wage being offered - which I also understand was pathetically low. There’s no background check and psych testing to speak of, and he gets to be called a “policeman” and he gets to carry a gun?
Similarly, you have psycho-dude over at Virginia Tech, with NUMEROUS reports of some possible mental problems, but he’s able to acquire guns rather easily.
If we look back at the litany of mass murderers in this country in just the last 30 or 40 years, we’ll see more stories like this…no denial of these people buying guns, but we always find out later (TOO late) where “he was a strange guy” and “he showed signs of aggression” type revelations.
So, do we need more PENALTIES? No, we need to enforce the ones we have in place. Do we need to make it tougher for someone to buy a gun? Absolutely. If a “responsible” citizen wants a gun, and that same “responsible” citizen is willing to let our freedoms be taken away every day by the Patriot Act, or willing to stand in line for an hour and take off his shoes and maybe even more just to get on a commuter flight from Peoria to Minneapolis, then that person should be willing to pass the necessary procedures, from background checks to waiting periods (SIGNIFICANT waiting periods, not “a few days”) to psychological exams to get a gun. If you’re “normal”, well, that shouldn’t be a problem, should it?
October 10th, 2007 at 9:55 am
OK, so I guess Vonster was right when he said BJ wanted a “pre-crime” unit.
Although he is finally back on topic, BJ still fails to address how any law would have prevented this crime.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Mouse: It won’t. It just makes libs feel better about it.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:28 am
BJ sez: “The story came out today (yesterday maybe?) that this 20-year old “cop†didn’t have to go through much…if ANY training to get his badge and therefore his gun. He simply “applied†for the job and was willing to work for the wage being offered”
I sez: I call B.S. on you, Stoney. Show me your source for this info.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/chi-shoot_weboct10,0,4869643.story
“…Peterson was a good student who worked hard in high school with the goal of becoming a cop. After graduation, he attended the law enforcement training programs at Nicolet Technical College and Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in Green Bay.”
and
“…just earned a spot on the local SWAT team”
They don’t just hand out S.W.A.T team hats at Dunkin Donuts.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Mouse, I heard it on either WLS or WGN while driving at 9 o’clock at night the other night. Excuse me for not taking detailed notes by hand while operating my vehicle. Maybe when I get a chance I’ll do an exhaustive research project for the printed transcript of every show on those stations for the last 72 hours and find it for you (eyes rolling around in “fucking whatever” mode). If I would have put “I heard” or “supposedly” in front of that sentence, would that make it any better for you?
Be that as it may, the kid SUPPOSEDLY was hired in September, 2006 at the age of 19. Common sense would make one ask: “How much training could a 19-year old possibly have completed when, for instance, Minnesota requires a 2-year or 4-year education to get a law enforcement license? Did he go to college at 15?”
According to this story:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/GPG0101/71009140/1978, he completed a whole one class at a community college in December of 2006, PRIOR to “receiving his law degree” at “another college”.
So it all appears pretty sketchy, as if someone (nah, this wouldn’t happen, would it?) is trying to cover their ass. Bottom line, he was “hired” before he “completed training”, and according to THIS story from your friends at Faux News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300003,00.html, the kid didn’t have any psychological testing done, whether he’d completed his “training” (and I use that word loosely in this case) or not.
An excerpt:
“The rampage raised questions in the remote northern Wisconsin community of 2,000 about how Peterson could have met requirements to become a law enforcement officer, especially after police acknowledged Monday that Peterson received no psychological screening before he was hired.
Some questioned the wisdom of hiring someone so young.
“No person that I’ve ever known at 20 years old was responsible enough to be a police officer,” said Steve Bocek, of Oak Creek, whose nephew Bradley Schultz was killed. “It’s unbelievable. You don’t have the mind to be a police officer. It takes a lot.”"
…and also this, to show - again - his hire date was before his training was complete:
“Peterson was hired as full-time deputy sheriff on Sept. 11, 2006, at the age of 19, according to personnel records released by the Forest County clerk. His yearlong probation ended last month.
Dr. Phil Trompetter, a police psychologist in Modesto, Calif., estimated at least 80 percent of states require psychological testing of prospective officers.
“Wisconsin must be in a very small minority of states,” he said.”
More later. Sorry if this isn’t “good enough” for you, but even your source shows he never attended anything higher than a technical school. No disrespect for the technical schools, but I’ve always imagined police training to be a litle more in depth than that.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:54 am
BJ sez: “So it all appears pretty sketchy, as if someone (nah, this wouldn’t happen, would it?) is trying to cover their ass. ”
I sez: Gee whiz, I am surprised it took you this long to jump into an conspiracy theory.
On the positive side, it is nice to see you using reputable sources for a change, instead of just “I’m right and you’re a Cubs fan” as a basis for your argument.
Your sarcasm aside, you are finally bringing reasonable arguments, supported by fact, to the table. However, if you look and see, they have little to do with you original “don’t take away my gun” post.
You’re darn right there needs to be more training/testing before a person becomes a cop. Maybe there should be a minimum age (21, probably). The thing is, even locally, we have seen cops of all ages do stupid and deadly things.
October 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Oh, I feel soooo much better now that I have your approval. I stand by my original post. My blog is MY OPINION as much as it is based in fact. I am allowed to have a thought. You are allowed to comment (although I think people who reveal who they are are much more credible commentators). You could, however, start doing it in a less condescending style, donchya think?
October 12th, 2007 at 5:03 am
So, um, BJ… When are you gonna answer the question?
Its been a long time since we’ve seen someone on a local blog who was so reluctant to answer simple questions but so willing to throw out red herrings to avoid backing up their original statements.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:50 am
BJ - check your spam filter - I think a post got stuck.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Tony - What question? Just so you know, a quick check of this thread shows over 30 questions being asked, as well as a couple of demands for proof in non-question form. Some of the questions were asked in a rhetorical way, some were serious queries, some were pure sarcasm. Half of the question marks have been typed by me, with most of those questions going unanswered as well (such as: “How’d the Cubs do Saturday?”…but I guess that could fall in the category of “rhetorical”).
So, was I supposed to answer one of my own questions, or someone elses? Is that a question? There was another one. Which one would you like me to answer?
NOTE TO OTHER READERS: “Tony” is simply a trouble maker, who has never posted an original thought of his own on this or any other blog. He only stirs the pot. Just a clarification. Thank you. Carry on.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Mouse, I did a couple of mass edits. Musta been in there.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Dang, let’s see if I can sum up the response.
1. Your blog, your opinion. If you don’t like anonymous commenting, then don’t allow it. If you don’t want to debate, then don’t allow comments at all. However a blog that allows comment is an open invitation to debate. If you don’t bring fact and back up your opinions with sources, then your argument is going to be systematically disassembled.
2. I was taken aback by your response to what I felt were positive comments left by me. I was starting to see some merit in your statements and kind of got slapped for it.
3. I think we disagree on this subject, but there are other subject I know we do agree on. (I was more eloquent than that, but I am suffering from my first early Saturday morning hockey practice for my little one). Basically, I am hoping you aren’t taking this personally.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:19 am
NOTE TO READERS: I know Tony, and while he does like to ’stir the pot’ I would not call him a “troublemaker.”
BJ - I think Tony is referring to the very first question raised.
Exactly what law would have prevented this tragedy?
October 13th, 2007 at 11:28 am
I already answered that question…we don’t HAVE any laws that would have prevented it. Because the system is broke. That’s what needs to change. And yes, your friend Tony, whom I don’t know personally, and may be a great guy in person, is nothing but a troublemaker, a stirrer of the pot, on this blog and others. Find me a post where he’s ever offered a solution or an opinion on anything, other than antagonizing people…mostly me.
I’m not taking much of what you say personally, (there have been a couple of small items), but I do really think Tony and I need to have a sit down.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
BJ,
Regarding the age of police officers: Different states have different rules as to how they decide who is eligible to serve as a police officer. Illinois, I believe, requires one to be 21 and to have an associates in something that is applicable to law enforcement and police acadamey. In Georgia, where I am originally from, one must be 18 and complete police acadamey.
Also, I suppose that none of the thousands of young people in Iraq can handle the responsibility of having weopons, especially those who have the responsibility of being in charge. But you are correct, stupidity knows no age.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
BJ, I get it. You antagonize people and avoid questions all you want and its okay. I question you and others when that happens and I’m the bad guy.
I think I remember now why I quit reading (for the most part) and quit posting on local blogs. Too many people who are way too sure that they are the only ones right.