CNN just posted a surveillance picture of the Omaha scumbag. Looks like an AK pattern rifle to me.
The giveaway is his right arm. He's holding a pistol grip. Front sight tree and the top of the rifle also match an AK pattern rifle. You can also see the hint of the curved magazine underneath.
I hope this asshole suffers in Hell for all eternity for what he has done. No one needs a name while they're screaming in endless agony having their flesh flayed from their bones.
The giveaway is his right arm. He's holding a pistol grip. Front sight tree and the top of the rifle also match an AK pattern rifle. You can also see the hint of the curved magazine underneath.
I hope this asshole suffers in Hell for all eternity for what he has done. No one needs a name while they're screaming in endless agony having their flesh flayed from their bones.
10 comments:
This guy is wrong on so many points it sets my teeth on edge.
Brass
Hi Armed- is that a Muslim name, by the way?
You seem to have calmed down again. That's good.
If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that more people bearing loaded arms in public would decrease gun crime. I don't think that's true, for the simple reason that just as many irresponsible people would carry them, as responsible people.
We would have a situation where vigilantes began pulling guns because someone snatched a purse, or slapped their misbehaving child, or screamed abuse. We would have a nation of self-styled 'deputies', ever ready to take the law into their own hands.
If only it were as simple as 'irresponsible folks don't get to carry guns'. You know the world doesn't work that way. Why would you seek to encourage the public to carry around more of these lethal things? I have little enough faith in the expertise and wisdom of the average gun-bearing cop, when presented with a life-threatening situation, without arming ordinary civilians.
Your scenario of the mall murderer being stopped in his tracks by a quick-thinking armed citizenry is utopian. It would simply have become a shoot-out between confused, frightened, adrenalin-fuelled people with little or no combat training. The prospect of collateral damage from cross-fire, or mistaken identity would be considerable. Anyway, that lad would have picked a position of cover before opening fire, if he knew there were armed opponents.
More guns is not the solution. We live in a society that has glamorised violence and little punks like this can obtain a gun with alarming ease. Our wonderful movie industry has ensured that there will surely be more of these misguided attempts to snatch 15 minutes of fame. And as you say, the press will continue to pander to them. Anything to boost their sales.
Anyone else got any bright ideas for how to prevent this kind of incident from happening again?
Love Silverly
Silvery, based on the requirements and training that acompany the issuance of a CCW, it's simply not at all how it works.
Silvelry, history proves you wrong. In every case of mass murder by a lone gunman in the last 20 years you have had an unarmed populace been targeted in a "gun free zone". Schools, colleges and malls. In every case that a nut attempted a mass murder and failed, was because of armed civilians in their mist.
But beyond that, up to the 1960s, guns where prevalent in the hands of civilians. The very few cases of mass murder where between gangsters (Valentines Day Masacre) or where stopped by civilians (the UT tower snipper comes to mind) It was only after the civilian populace was disarmed by law and societal peer pressure (guns bad=gun owners bad), that mass killings became more frequent (post office shootings, school masacres, etc). Those who are irresponsible will carry wether legal or not. The nuts will not care about the law. Is only the law abbiding that leave their guns in the car or at home. Look at it this way, in the old "wild" west, where most carried, violent confrontations were rare and limited to criminals vs criminals, law enforcement vs criminals and land disputes. Famed "Lawman" Wyatt Earp, had only one deadly confrontation in Kansas City before the fight near the OK corral. Check out the graves at boot hill. In a very violent town, full of miners, criminals, gamblers and prostitutes, even with a gang war, most were killed by indians, accidents or disease.
Silvery, it appears y'all went astray in Para 3. You are correct and you don't know it.
The problem is the irresponsible folks already bear (illegal) arms as opposed to the responsible (CCW-bearing) folks. I guess y'all were mislead....
"If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that more people bearing loaded arms in public would decrease gun crime. I don't think that's true, for the simple reason that just as many irresponsible people would carry them, as responsible people."
WRONG! It is true. This has been proven by John Lott, Gary Kleck, and other scholars as well as by studies that this is simply not true. The ratio of people who carry irresponsibly to those who carry responsibly are overwhelmingly in favor of those who carry responsibly. Those with Concealed-Carry licenses prove this and are the most law-abiding.
"We would have a situation where vigilantes began pulling guns because someone snatched a purse, or slapped their misbehaving child, or screamed abuse. We would have a nation of self-styled 'deputies', ever ready to take the law into their own hands."
WRONG!! More emotional, fear-mongering rhetoric. People carry firearms all the time in states that allow concealed-carry and I have yet to see a story where a law-abiding citizen acted irrationally and did these things that you mention. States that allow concealed-carry have seen crime decrease across the board. Again, proven by statistics and studies shown such as from the FBI Crime Database.
"If only it were as simple as 'irresponsible folks don't get to carry guns'. You know the world doesn't work that way. Why would you seek to encourage the public to carry around more of these lethal things? I have little enough faith in the expertise and wisdom of the average gun-bearing cop, when presented with a life-threatening situation, without arming ordinary civilians."
Your right it doesn't work that way but it also doesn't work when citizens are banned from carrying. Reducing firearms does not reduce crime or misuse of them. This is because 1) Criminals will always get firearms even with total gun-bans and 2) They will use another tool. This has been proven again by numerous statistics put out by the CDC, FBI, and other studies. Also why do you care if a law-abiding citizen carries? What harm is he doing to you? Why would you fear someone who wouldn't harm you or cause danger to you in the first place? WHy fear someone who knows how to use their firearm. I have read stories where cops have misused firearms way more than the law-abiding citizen. It seems that you do not understand how the real world works by the fact there will always be life and death situations. Do you see it fit to submit and be killed rather than resist? Again, just because YOU have little faith and you feel the need to push your own insecurities on others does not make it true. Again you have been proven wrong by this not only by stats but history as well.
"Your scenario of the mall murderer being stopped in his tracks by a quick-thinking armed citizenry is utopian. It would simply have become a shoot-out between confused, frightened, adrenalin-fuelled people with little or no combat training. The prospect of collateral damage from cross-fire, or mistaken identity would be considerable. Anyway, that lad would have picked a position of cover before opening fire, if he knew there were armed opponents."
WRONG!! It is not utopian. This as mentioned by anon proves you wrong. In fact, the mere brandishing of a weapon has stopped these wannabe killers in their tracks because they are cowards. They only seek those who are unarmed. All these massacres you hear of now all occurred in GUN-FREE ZONES! As in guns were not allowed there anyway yet still there. How can this happen? CRIMINALS AND KILLERS DO NOT OBEY LAWS!! "Feeling safe" is not a substitute to being safe. Again, this has been proven. Why do you think massacres never happen at gun shows, gun ranges, or in places where people are allowed to conceal? Because the citizens are armed and are deterrents to crime. Had there been armed opponents he would not seek cover and continue. He would assume that since the mall forbids any weapon of any kind on its grounds that the citizens would too be unarmed since the law already forbids it. Had there been an armed opponent he either would A) been stopped or B) flee because he is a coward looking for unarmed prey.
"More guns is not the solution. We live in a society that has glamorised violence and little punks like this can obtain a gun with alarming ease. Our wonderful movie industry has ensured that there will surely be more of these misguided attempts to snatch 15 minutes of fame. And as you say, the press will continue to pander to them. Anything to boost their sales. Anyone else got any bright ideas for how to prevent this kind of incident from happening again?"
I have a solution for you. Not necessarily more guns but allowing law-abiding citizens to be armed everywhere is the solution and keeping criminals in jail permanently. If need be they should be killed. They have no feelings for your health nor care for your welfare. Every time a repeat offender is released he continues his evil trade just like before. Like anon said, the mere brandishing of rifles and pistols both concealed and open is a deterrent to crime. Banning access to them does not stop crime. Criminals feed on gun-bans and gun-free zones. All massacres occurred in gun-free zones. What did that do? It made you "feel" safe but that is it. You say Hollywood and the Press pander to violence and these punks and that is true but this is also the same press and Hollywood that does everything in its power to disarm and mislead the public in to thinking guns are bad in the first place. Besides, anyone with a half a brain knows anything out of Hollywood is fake! It is not the gun, it is the person. A gun is a tool. That is it. It has no emotions or feelings and does not act on its own. The gun has saved more lives than that used for evil intent. What we need is more people control not gun control. We already have 20,000 gun laws on the books and look what it has done to stop crime. It has done NOTHING! Only when the citizens are properly allowed to carry everywhere and at anytime as well as locking up the criminals for good will you see crime go down and an end to these massacres. HISTORY AND STATISTICS PROVE THIS!!
My SKS has an aftermarket stock with a pistol grip. As it also uses a gas tube over the barrel and has a tall front sight it just might be mistaken for an AK-47 from a distance or in a grainy surveillance video.
So just what was he carrying?
Thanks for all the interesting feedback, people.
It is not the case that 'massacres only happen in Gun Free zones'. What about cases like the Clock Tower in Austin, where the shooting may have begun in a Gun Free zone, but by the time the cops shot Whitman the campus was a regular battleground. Whitman must have known he would attract the police's attention. No amount of armed citizens could have stopped him barricading himself into the observation deck, because they could not have known his intentions.
The fact that massacres tend to start out in 'soft' environments is a reflection of the gunman's feelings of hostility towards society. Schools are a prime example, as the recent events in Finland have again shown. Do you propose that every teacher carry a loaded gun in the classroom, just in case another maniac ex-pupil should show up?
There are plenty of examples of people shooting armed policemen in cold blood, when pulled over for a routine traffic violation for instance. This might not constitute a massacre, but when criminals become involved in shoot-outs with the law, what really is the difference?
I became interested in Armed because he typifies to me the sort of person I would least like to see carrying a gun in public- concealed or openly. His readiness to judge others in the most extreme terms and his simmering rage, are symptoms of a character that might well be called 'unstable'. Sorry Armed, perhaps you've got a soft old underbelly, but you sure come over like a bona fide psycho.
You are all sooo ready to defend the bearing of arms. How will you feel when your 4-year old finds daddy's handgun- which daddy left on the table (while cleaning and reloading it) to go and answer the telephone? Imagine the scenario- you come back into the room and John jnr is grinning happily at you, the barrel waving in your general direction, John jnr gurgling with pleasure because he's pretending to be daddy, lift, aim, squeeze...
Ok, call me melodramatic, but incidents like this are happening every day. I've been shot in crossfire, and on two other occasions I've had guns pointed at me, so I feel I have some perspective.
Why do you say Hollywood is demonising guns? My impression is the opposite. Any Tarantino film, plus the likes of Mr & Mrs Smith portray gun use as cool. Beautiful or powerful people using guns to make the statement: "I am in control here, fear me". To say that 'anyone knows films are fake' is to ignore the fact that films are an enormous influence, especially over young people.
But the biggest influence over young people is still their parents (or do you doubt that?) and that is why I believe parents should not advertise gun ownership as natural and normal. This is not the Wild West any more. Let's not forget that.
By the way, although I don't own a gun, I do fire guns from time to time. I find it intoxicating, exciting, fun. So do kids.
Grow up already!
It is not the case that 'massacres only happen in Gun Free zones'. What about cases like the Clock Tower in Austin, where the shooting may have begun in a Gun Free zone, but by the time the cops shot Whitman the campus was a regular battleground. Whitman must have known he would attract the police's attention. No amount of armed citizens could have stopped him barricading himself into the observation deck, because they could not have known his intentions.
Are you aware that during Whitman's rampage, several citizens retrieved their personal firearms and aided the deputies in returning fire to distract Whitman while the police closed in? Armed citizens did indeed participate in subduing him at great personal risk to themselves.
The fact that massacres tend to start out in 'soft' environments is a reflection of the gunman's feelings of hostility towards society. Schools are a prime example, as the recent events in Finland have again shown. Do you propose that every teacher carry a loaded gun in the classroom, just in case another maniac ex-pupil should show up?
Soft environments I might add that were of legislative creation. You are aware that in the 1950s, many high schools had rifle teams and many students carried their guns to and from school as a matter of course? How many mass shootings occurred in that time?
No, I am not proposing that all teachers be armed. I do support the idea that the artificial barriers to lawful carry of a concealed weapon by a teacher who has qualified to do so under existing State law be allowed to do so. These artificial barriers were created to make people feel safe and have clearly not made them safe. So I am for removing the barriers.
If a teacher follows the process and obtains a CCW permit, they should not be stopped by that invisible line between the street and the school.
And before you argue about them being armed around children, ask how that is any different than that same person walking around with a concealed gun in a public place with children around? The difference is psychological because of individual fears or prejudices.
I became interested in Armed because he typifies to me the sort of person I would least like to see carrying a gun in public- concealed or openly. His readiness to judge others in the most extreme terms and his simmering rage, are symptoms of a character that might well be called 'unstable'. Sorry Armed, perhaps you've got a soft old underbelly, but you sure come over like a bona fide psycho.
Care to provide examples of how I judge in extremes? I believe in individual rights and personal responsibility rather than absolving yourself of them as a hypothetical victim. If that makes me extremist, so be it.
Fortunately, silverly, you don't get to make the choice about whether I should be armed or not. The State of Virginia, Maryland and the US Government have already I can be. And I am. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.
Do not confuse passion for rage. I am passionate about my feelings and positions on issues. It may come across as unbending and extreme in a words-only medium but it is what it is. Anyone who knows me can understand the distinction in person between the two.
I believe very strongly in the concept of personal defense. This is not a Wild West mentality. If anything, history shows the notion of the Wild West as being a dangerous, gun violence filled time to be largely a myth. It was, in fact, very peaceful. Arms were used when necessary but this idea of commonplace shootouts over the smallest of grievances did not occur.
But the biggest influence over young people is still their parents (or do you doubt that?) and that is why I believe parents should not advertise gun ownership as natural and normal. This is not the Wild West any more. Let's not forget that.
I wholeheartedly agree the biggest influence for young people are parents. If you don't believe gun ownership is normal or natural, that is your opinion and you are free to raise your children that way. I won't look down on you for that choice.
But don't look down on me for wanting to raise my children with proper firearms knowledge and safety. That is not an abnormal condition. It is responsible parenting. Children have been raised under such circumstances for generations with no ill effects. The problems with guns and kids is not the fault of the guns.
There is nothing I can do to alter your perceptions of me and I'm not going to try. If I scare you, then you scare me too. You frighten me because you wish to impose your wishes and controls upon me in the absence of my committing a crime simply based on your belief that I am a borderline personality or a cauldron of simmering rage. Are you a psychologist? Do you have a scientific process that you can use to make such determinations when you've never even met me? Or if you did, would you feel uncomfortable doing so because I might be armed? If so, maybe I'm not the one with the issue.
I see my duty to my fellow citizens as a sheepdog, the way of the warrior. I never want to draw a weapon on someone but if necessary, I hope to have the courage and ability to carry through should I need to.
Hey Armed,
Well said on many points.
I may be uncomfortable about the proliferation of guns in US society, but I don't look down on you for wanting to educate your kids to handle guns responsibly. For the record, I have given informal instruction to my 2 godsons, in the presence of their father, on firing and handling a .22 rifle, at the ages of around 11 and 13. I realise gun clubs used to be common in school, I attended such a club when I was a kid. But here's a thing-
The world has changed. I'm not going to get too deeply into why, but changed it has. Discipline is apparently a thing of the past. Parents are so disempowered now by PC laws and perceptions that they have no idea where to draw the line with child rearing. The '60s laid the groundwork for absurd levels of tolerance and license, and Main Street USA is now reaping the harvest. The ego is now free to rampage and indulge, to say 'Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me' and all in the name of freedom.
The real problem that we are beginning to see is that those children of the '60s are now themselves raising children, having no idea how to say no to them.
Clearly you are cut from different cloth, but for many parents child-rearing seems to consist of allowing kids to do what they want, when they want. Scary. And you are happy to see all these young egos carrying weapons? If they're smart enough to get driving licenses, they're smart enough to get gun licenses.
So- times have changed. We no longer live in a culture where kids are raised with a clear concept of right and wrong, other than that dispensed to them by an irresponsible and profit-driven TV and movie industry. My God, no wonder there are massacres.
I want to apologize to you for judging you. But if you posted in the clear, coherent, logical terms that you just have on a regular basis, instead of for instance 'Lying Bastards' which was full of bitter sarcasm and, to me, hair-splitting irrelevancy and 'It Looks Like An AK', which contained : 'I hope this asshole suffers in Hell for all eternity for what he has done. No one needs a name while they're screaming in endless agony having their flesh flayed from their bones'. Another post I can no longer locate mentioned that you were 'Going out on the range to blow off some steam'.
These, plus regular use of phrases like 'stupid bastards' 'scumbag' 'whackjob' and so on, coupled with references to revenge, hell or blood-soaked glee, do add up to give an appearance of, shall we say, a violent nature.
Add to that your enthusiasm for what is in effect an armed and self-governing militia walking the streets, and perhaps you see my point of view.
On a different, but related theme, how do you explain the fact that the US has by a towering majority, the greatest proportion of gun crime in the developed world? It has virtually all the civilian massacres, virtually all the serial killers and the highest number of gun deaths per capita, by a huge, huge margin. The recent school massacre in Finland was clearly a copycat Columbine. Clear links were found between various US school massacres and the Finnish boy's on his YouTube and internet postings.
This is not to say that similar incidents do not happen spontaneously, elsewhere in the world, but the statistics speak for themselves. What is your view on this phenomenon, and what if anything do you think the US needs to do to change?
Silverly
Post a Comment