South SLO County shooter hits three homes

January 3, 2012

A ground and air search for a shooter responsible for peppering homes on three streets with bullets Sunday afternoon ended after San Luis Obispo Sheriff deputies discovered a man target shooting with a rifle on the north side of the Santa Maria River.  [SantaMariaTimes]

No one was injured in the incident that was first reported at 3:30 p.m. The target shooter’s stray bullets hit homes on Bentley Avenue, Schuman Place and Divide Way in Santa Maria.

Officials are not releasing the target-shooter’s name, “but he reportedly told authorities that he was unaware that his bullets were traveling to the far side of the river,” the Santa Maria Times said.

After Santa Maria police discovered spent rounds in one of the homes and heard shots coming from the river bed, a Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s helicopter and Santa Maria police officers scoured the area. They found no one and abandoned their search.

About an hour later, SLO County Sheriff deputies found the shooter.


Loading...

80 Comments

  1. Citizen says:

    Stupid. Why do people around here think they can just go out into the “country” and shoot guns or go off-roading or hike on land that is not theirs.

    Why do people think they can shoot guns up into the air and the bullets never return to earth?

    Why would someone shoot across the river, and not shoot downward. Stupid.

    (1) 9 Total Votes - 5 up - 4 down
    • Side_Show_Bob says:

      Do you have details and information that leads to all these conclusions you have reached?

      I have seen nothing in this story that factually represents your comments.

      (0) 14 Total Votes - 7 up - 7 down
      • Side_Show_Bob says:

        LMAO!

        Again….and as per usual….thumbs down already for questions seeking truth.

        Never a surprise here! LOL

        (0) 6 Total Votes - 3 up - 3 down
      • fester20 says:

        sorry side show bob hit diskike when i ment to hit LIKE sorry

        (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  2. MaryMalone says:

    OMG. Connect the dots. Look at the story about the MBPD officer Brown saying his guns were stolen from his unlocked car.

    Thank you, Karen, for making us work to make the connection. It keeps us from getting lazy.

    (-12) 12 Total Votes - 0 up - 12 down
    • Side_Show_Bob says:

      What connection does this story have to the story about the stolen guns?

      :headscratch:

      (10) 12 Total Votes - 11 up - 1 down
  3. shelworth says:

    I remember a great quote from Charlton Heston; “Ted Kennedy killed more people with his car than I have with my banned assault rifle”.

    (12) 28 Total Votes - 20 up - 8 down
    • BeenThereDoneThat says:

      Hahahahaha. OUCH!! Now your going to get an earfull from the left leaning here.

      (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        Why would we waste our time on an old stupid line that been used so many times? Why do those on the right have such a hard time with originality and wit?

        (-10) 16 Total Votes - 3 up - 13 down
  4. oto says:

    Looks like the three homes that got hit with bullets is not the only thing with holes in it: so is the police data cited in this article. If the helicopter and Santa Maria PD found no shooter, then how could the SLO Sheriff’s office? Did they cross jurisdictional lines to assist in the investigation? Or did the helicopter radio the SLOSO that the shooter was on his way back to SLO County?

    Taking the story at face value, I would suggest to Been There, that even gun owners who want to be responsible have no idea what they are doing. This is the scariest part of the gun ownership dialog. When I discussed this article with a friend, he told me that even a small caliber rifle, like a .22 can fire a bullet that can travel TWO MILES! He told me that firearms which people consider to be relatively safe because their bullets are “small” can actually result in the greatest harm. This is because people don’t realize that the smaller the bullet, the farther it travels.

    As for me, I would prefer a Saturday Night Live kind of defense, as opposed to a “Saturday Night special”. I would like to have one of those dart guns that Fish and Game uses to get bears off of telephone poles. When that rapist climbs through your bedroom window, just shoot ‘im in the ass with a tranquilizer dart, and voila! Eight hours later, he wakes up handcuffed in the back of the squad car….”Better Living Through Chemistry!”

    (-16) 22 Total Votes - 3 up - 19 down
    • BeenThereDoneThat says:

      Lame arguement. You say that even responsible gun owners have no idea what they are doing. So that implies all. Then your expert friend (who I don’t disagree with) you will listen to?? Well wouldn’t he fall into the all catagory? My point is your brush is broad and you are sterotyping everyone as same. Your arguement is leaking water.

      Last it is the kind of information you state (about distance traveled etc.) that CAN be taught in a gun class. For the record I don’t have any gun in my house (well pellet gun but comon) BUT I don’t have a problem if my neighbor wants to own one if everything is legal and he is trained properly.

      (10) 14 Total Votes - 12 up - 2 down
    • Cindy says:

      “When that rapist climbs through your bedroom window, just shoot ‘im in the ass with a tranquilizer dart, and voila! ”

      Cute idea but when that rapist climbs through your window, chances are you will be asleep and will wake up to find him standing over your bed or in it. I’d prefer to reach under my pillow and cap him with a 38 any place that I can. Looking for my dart gun and his ass while he’s looking for mine just ain’t gonna cut it ;)

      (13) 23 Total Votes - 18 up - 5 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        Statistically you will either be injured by your gun under your pillow, some other innocent person will be injured by your gun or someone will commit suicide with you gun over you using your gun in self defense.

        (-17) 29 Total Votes - 6 up - 23 down
        • BeenThereDoneThat says:

          Well a dart might not be instant and the attacker could still come at you. Instead of a handgun, how about a sawed off shotgun. No bullets will leave your house (or perp). No collateral damage (other than perp) and don’t have to be a precise shot. Just go for general area.

          (2) 10 Total Votes - 6 up - 4 down
          • Cindy says:

            A sawed off shot gun under my pillow seems like a bit much to be sleeping with ;)

            (-2) 8 Total Votes - 3 up - 5 down
            • BeenThereDoneThat says:

              Well you remember the Beatles song, “Happiness is a warm gun.”???

              (1) 5 Total Votes - 3 up - 2 down
              • Cindy says:

                Hahah, We obviously have a bunch of jokers around here. Look at those thumbs down on my post about sleeping with a sawed off !!

                (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
        • Cindy says:

          I will not injure myself with my gun, I will not shoot an innocent person that is trying to climb into bed with me and I will not commit suicide. However, the gun will be in working order a lot longer than I will be and after I’m gone from here, I make no promises. In the mean time, the gun stay’s under my pillow when I’m home alone.

          (4) 14 Total Votes - 9 up - 5 down
        • choprzrul says:

          Reference for those statistics please?

          (3) 5 Total Votes - 4 up - 1 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            http://bradycampaign.com/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome

            (-4) 8 Total Votes - 2 up - 6 down
            • Side_Show_Bob says:

              The Brady Campaign? REALLY? Truly comical.

              Even after following their footnoted data, it’s precisely what I expected.

              More Weak Sauce

              (10) 14 Total Votes - 12 up - 2 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                The studies listed on that site were not conducted by the ‘Brady Campaign’.

                Read much?

                (-3) 7 Total Votes - 2 up - 5 down
              • Robert1 says:

                That’s like getting info on how to dispatch a animal from PETA .

                (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  I don’t know why there’s so much hate about the Brady website. There is a lot of FACTUAL information there. The studies are good studies. I referred to that website as it has so many studies in one spot. Did you bother to click on any of the studies?

                  Geez, do I need to spoon feed you people. Chop asked for a reference and I gave him many. There are tons of other references that back up my claim regarding who will most likely get injured from you gun regarding criminal VS innocent victim. I’ve done the foot work, it’s true, either live by the info fed to you by the NRA or do some independent thinking and find other sources. I choose to look at all sides and make up my own mind.

                  (-7) 9 Total Votes - 1 up - 8 down
  5. Cindy says:

    We should all have to be competent gun owners. When I purchased my hand gun, I had to take a class on gun safety and I think rifle owners should have to do the same. This is ridiculous that three homes were hit by stray bullets.

    (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
  6. slosheepdog says:

    I wonder if it was 10 year old kid shooting the guns he just stole from Paul Browns unlocked car. Maybe they are not releasing his name since he is a juvenile.

    (7) 13 Total Votes - 10 up - 3 down
  7. WiseGuy says:

    I can’t wait to see how the gun nuts spin this one.

    (-3) 33 Total Votes - 15 up - 18 down
    • mkaney says:

      There’s no reason to spin it. EVERY decision in policy has good and bad effects. Neither a citizenry without guns, nor a citizenry with guns will result in a perfect outcome every time. i am willing to accept the downsides of too many armed people more than I am willing to accept the downsides of an unarmed population ESPECIALLY in the context of a militarized, dishonest police force and rigged election system. Cheers

      (22) 32 Total Votes - 27 up - 5 down
      • mkaney says:

        Sorry I meant to say I am willing to accept the downsides of an ARMED population, my bad

        (14) 22 Total Votes - 18 up - 4 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        I’m not willing to allow every nut job and idiot in the country to carry guns. This is a perfect example of why.

        Why shouldn’t someone have to show that they are competent to be a gun owner? You people refuse to compromise on anything and in all due respect it’s very selfish of you. In your last sentence you are saying that people should be able to take the law into their own hands, you are promoting vigilantism. If you are drunk and disagree with the cop that pulls you over then you should be allowed to disobey what he directs you to do even by force. So are you also saying that when Bush lost his first election that we had the right to take the law into our own hands as it was a ‘rigged election’.

        (-16) 34 Total Votes - 9 up - 25 down
        • mkaney says:

          In the case you are describing, it would have made little sense because it didn’t matter who it was rigged for.. Gore or Bush, the outcome would have been the same. But yes, I am actually saying that the people, AS A GROUP, have the inalienable right to take the law into their own hands because they ARE the law. That is different than a drunk disobeying a police officer. VERY different.

          When I speak of rigged elections, I’m talking about all our elections, too. They have made it so easy to rig an election with electronic voting machines it’s ridiculous. And I’m not just being paranoid… I have personally looked at the Diebold central vote tabulation software (e.g. the machine that counts the votes, not the voting machine) and I can tell you that it is practically designed for fraud. Data is stored in unencrypted JET (Microsoft Access) format data files, with a security log that can also be easy manipulated. It’s a joke, most people have no idea what’s really going on,.

          (7) 17 Total Votes - 12 up - 5 down
          • WiseGuy says:

            The Diebold situation is no secret, but I doubt anyone will solve the problem with guns.

            (1) 7 Total Votes - 4 up - 3 down
        • The Gimlet Eye says:

          Typoqueen, your comment is full of unexamined assumptions. You might be surprised at the gentle words of reason coming from many gun owners nowadays. Since they have the means to deal with threats, they do not need to make a great show of their ability to ward off the criminal elements without having to wait for the police to respond (by then, it may be too late anyway; will you attend our funerals?).

          For those gun owners who speak with more emotion, one can hardly blame them. Gun owners are not so different from yourself. What difference there is apparently has something to do with their insistence on the sanctity of self-defense; whereas you seem to have visions of anarchy and bloodletting at the mere mention of guns.

          Your mind seems filled with “nut jobs,” “idiots,” and other monsters which go bump in the night, but your mind is selective. If I must accept your thesis that monsters roam the earth, I say very well. But then YOU must accept the fact that I will carry the appropriate weaponry to slay them, should the need arise.

          However, I notice that this article is distinctly lacking in facts. I wonder why?

          Would mandatory “gun training” have stopped this shooter? He would probably have never attended or complied with the requirement in the first place! So much for utopian laws!

          “Why shouldn’t someone have to show that they are competent to be a gun owner”?

          You might as well ask why someone shouldn’t have to show that they are “competent” citizens,” “competent” jurors (voir dire is certainly no guarantee!), “competent” to vote, “competent” enough to drive (a driver’s test is no guarantee, God knows!), or “competent” enough to be alive! Why stop with gun licenses?

          This leads to other problems, namely, what they call in economics, the “information problem.” How can government keep track of it all? Even if they could, would that guarantee that no one in the gigantic database would stray from the law?

          Gigantic databases do not stop bad things from happening!

          No one here is advocating lawlessness. We all have reason to fear that. Many here are advocating our right to self-defense, though. Are you afraid of that? A huge population of unarmed people will not stop crime! The criminals will still have guns and will use them on us.

          I have to agree with mkaney on this. I am more afraid of this increasingly bellicose POLICE STATE than I am of my neighbors.

          As for “taking the law into our own hands,” the POLICE STATE has already done that. We see its results more and more frequently, and it is not pretty. Being unarmed and helpless is not going to help us resist their tyranny.

          Remember something; WE are the state, not those disgusting, corrupt, scoundrels who purport to represent us in Sacramento or D.C. Whether you and I agree or not, we ought not grovel when these pirates, looters, and psychopaths seek to disarm us. Are we not entitled to self-defense? Why the hell should we assume that they are above the abuse of power, or that they would deal with us gently, justly, or ethically, once we are disarmed?

          Let us examine that assumption very carefully, because a lot more is riding on this assumption than the mere consideration of a lone sniper in southern SLO county.

          (3) 11 Total Votes - 7 up - 4 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            “whereas you seem to have visions of anarchy and bloodletting at the mere mention of guns”

            I didn’t say that.

            “Would mandatory “gun training” have stopped this shooter? He would probably have never attended or complied with the requirement in the first place! So much for utopian laws!”

            I don’t believe that. Maybe it wouldn’t have stopped him but maybe it would have, I feel that there’s a good chance that he would have attended the classes, most people are law abiding people. This guy just sounds a bit goofy but I see no reason to believe that e wouldn’t have attended a mandatory gun class. I taught guns safety for a few years and when some of the students came into the class they had no clue about even the basics ie, always handle a firearm as if it were loaded etc.. When they left the class they knew those things and I believe that the classes did make a difference.

            You do have to show that you are a competent driver when getting your license. Kids must take driving classes and pass a two tests to their licence. We should be able to expect regulations with weapons as we do with cars.

            Of course databases don’t prevent all gun related crimes just as drivers classes don’t prevent all car accidents but they help.

            I am more worried about someone going off the deep end than I am a gang member. Yes bad guys will get guns but perhaps if people like Dick Cheney had taken gun safety lessons or if the someone with mental issues had a waiting or cooling off period then we absolutely would prevent some of those types of crimes and accidental shootings. I can’t prevent the gang bangers from killing each other but perhaps I could have prevented Cheney from accidental shooting someone. I have given this example before: There was a married couple that we knew, the father came home and found his wife in bed with another women while his young son was playing in another room. He pulled out his gun and killed his wife. If this guy ran down the street, bought a gun, came back and killed his wife. If he had to go through a cooling off period there’s a very good chance that his wife would be alive today.

            As far as the right wing mumbo jumbo talking points about a ‘police state’, there’s no point in responding to it. It’s just right wing paranoia and propaganda that you have all bought into and no matter what I say you will feel the way you do on that, it would take a lot of counciling to get you guys to not buy into that NRA talking point.

            Sorry, lots of typos in a hurry.

            (-4) 10 Total Votes - 3 up - 7 down
            • OnTheOtherHand says:

              While I often agree with you, in this case I think The Gimlet Eye makes a very coherent and reasonable argument. And if you think that our law enforcement agencies aren’t moving towards a police state (conservative or liberal — doesn’t matter), you have already forgotten several local examples posted on this very website as well as some of the more recent OCW national news.

              If they were to get rid of gun registration requirements in exchange, I would consider gun owner licensing (with mandatory training) a trade-off. The government would then know only who was permitted to own a gun but not how many or what kind a particular individual owned. That might be an improvement in civil liberties (at least in this state) and, as you maintain, it would reduce the odds of gun accidents due to ignorance.

              (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
            • The Gimlet Eye says:

              You didn’t have to say it in so many words. I inferred. There is more to words than meets the eye.

              You have an amazing faith in the selective “probabilities” of wishful thinking! A “good chance”? What on earth can you base such faith on? Where does it come from? We know NOTHING about this person!

              Does getting a driver’s license make competent drivers? I can hear the audience laughing uncontrollably!

              “Of course databases don’t prevent all gun related crimes just as drivers classes don’t prevent all car accidents but they help.”

              How do they help? Whom do they help? Cui bono?

              As for “someone going off the deep end,” those events are extremely rare, and since you place so much faith in probability, the chances of your being a target or getting caught in the crossfire of such a person are pretty remote!

              However, have you heard of MK-Ultra? Most of these recent shooters were probably products of “black-ops” brainwashing of government intelligence agencies. Their assignments are “psy-ops.” I’ll let you figure out why they would want to do that. However, I warn you that if you investigate this, you will be going down a rabbit hole, or taking the “red pill.” If you can’t handle it, then just forget about it.

              As for domestic shootings, again you engage in naive, unexamined assumptions. He could just as easily have grabbed a butcher knife, an ax, a hammer, or a baseball bat, and done the job. Shall we pass legislation for “knife, ax, hammer, bat training”? Would that stop people from going berserk or save any lives?

              Where does all this gd “regulating” stop?

              We are the most “regulated” human beings in the history of the world, yet bad things continue to happen!

              As for “right wing mumbo jumbo,” I have no idea what you are talking about.

              Are you saying that the U.S. is immune to the historical forces which can produce a police state, that it can’t happen here? Are we really so much better people than the Germans of the early 1930’s were that a dictatorship could never possibly, under any circumstances, take over our country?

              Your naiveté leaves me speechless!

              I was not born yesterday, Typoqueen. I am a student of history. Like it or not, I have had to face up to the relentless, psychotic characters which crowd the pages of our histories, and I have been forced to draw conclusions about them, and about the “masses” whom they have governed and massacred. The main conclusion is that WE ARE NOT UNIQUE

              (-1) 3 Total Votes - 1 up - 2 down
              • The Gimlet Eye says:

                Sorry, hit the wrong button and terminated prematurely.

                Continuing……

                We are subject to the same laws of psychology, history, and economics, as any other people on earth. It is true that our good system of government has protected us from tyranny for a long time, but that protection is rapidly eroding. I’m sorry that you cannot perceive that. I fear that you will, at some point soon, receive a very rude awakening when you finally realize what the New World Order has in store for you.

                We shall see whether my opinions reflect “right wing paranoia and propaganda” or not. Actually, your characterization I find thoroughly amazing!

                At any rate, I do not believe in such “dualism” as you subscribe to. “Right wing,” “left wing,” such distinctions are themselves nonsensical, fear-based promotions of the power elite and their hideous propaganda for the masses. You are the one who has taken the bait. See where your logic leads you, if you dare.

                (-1) 3 Total Votes - 1 up - 2 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  Paranoid nonesense. Your leaders have you right where they want you.

                  (-2) 6 Total Votes - 2 up - 4 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                “You didn’t have to say it in so many words”

                Projection. That was funny.

                “Does getting a driver’s license make competent drivers? I can hear the audience laughing uncontrollably”

                Of course there are bad drivers but what’s the point of requiring kids to take lessons and pass two two tests to get their license? It’s not make sure that they are somewhat competent to drive? Perhaps we shouldn’t have any licences, why not just let anyone at any age drive? It’s pretty basic, you go on quite a bit about that and I’m not sure why you don’t understand the point of the requirements for getting a drivers licence.

                “He could just as easily have grabbed a butcher knife, an ax, a hammer, or a baseball bat, and done the job. Shall we pass legislation for “knife, ax, hammer, bat training”? Would that stop people from going berserk or save any lives?”

                Well yes but it might easier to fight off of butcher knife, ax, hammer etc.. Yes I do believe it would save lives. Regarding this article, I’m sure if the guy shooting the houses had been practicing his knife throwing skills as opposed to his shooting skills that the three houses wouldn’t have bullet holes in them and their families would be much safer. He’d have to throw that hammer pretty hard to go that distance and go through a home.

                “Are you saying that the U.S. is immune to the historical forces which can produce a police state, that it can’t happen here? Are we really so much better people than the Germans of the early 1930′s were that a dictatorship could never possibly, under any circumstances, take over our country?”

                So you are saying that the German citizens and/or Jews could have stopped the Nazis if they were armed? Did they have gun control in Germany, were Germans not allowed to own guns? You believe that that the Germans would have prevented the that dictatorship if they were armed (which I believe they were),,,whose the naive one here!

                “Where does all this gd “regulating” stop?”

                LOL, every time I hear this line it really makes me giggle. I picture the rightiesr on their knees pulling their hair out in fear and paranoia. We aren’t trying to take your gd guns. We only want to make sure that it’s at least as difficult to get a gun as it is to drive a car. Why is that so difficult, why do you all freak out over that, is it really that hard to understand. Certain things need regulation. This is not the middle east, we don’t want you people shooting off your guns at weddings while doing your tongue rolls. I shouldn’t even have to explain why we need gun regulation, look at the guy in this article. IMO guns should be used for sport, those of you that feel that you are using your guns for protection and especially protection against the state are only fooling yourselves.

                ” I am a student of history.”

                Perhaps a few lessons on commensense might be more helpful for you.

                (-2) 4 Total Votes - 1 up - 3 down
                • The Gimlet Eye says:

                  You have not understood my response. Not at all. That’s perfectly obvious. You think in “fear based promotions.” Do you know what those are?

                  So now it’s “somewhat competent.” Are you backing away from your thesis with baby steps?

                  I understand the licensing procedure and its rationale well enough.

                  But, are you suggesting that most drivers are competent because of them? Another unexamined assumption!

                  Then what’s with all the super extensive regulations? The “sobriety checkpoints”? Traffic light cameras? Cops driving up and down the street like obsessive/compulsive morons wasting money on gas? Insurance fraud scams? If most drivers are “competent” because of the tests and licensing, then why all the frenetic activity from the traffic cops? Why all the thousands of tickets and millions of dollars of “revenue enhancement”? It’s pretty brisk business in law breaking for such a huge number of “competent” drivers!

                  You can’t have it both ways!

                  You giggle? You think a police state is funny? What kind of person are you?

                  You are of the same type as those in Germany who denied the atrocities of the Nazis. When they did occur, when the police state did come, when the crimes against humanity could no longer be denied, you still denied them! You still said that none of it was true!

                  The arrogance of anyone who thinks they are immune to the same
                  sicknesses and delusions as Hitler, Goebbels, and their followers! You are frightening!

                  If man has learned anything at all from history, it is this: tyranny can spring up ANYWHERE!

                  That is why we must exercise eternal vigilance EVERYWHERE! But to you, it’s just “paranoia.”

                  We shall see.

                  (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
                • The Gimlet Eye says:

                  With regard to you question about German gun control, I though you would find this interesting:

                  “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

                  –Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

                  In my newer edition, the material is on page 321. (New York: Enigma Books, 2000-2008).

                  As I said, I am a student of history (common sense is included).

                  (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
                • The Gimlet Eye says:

                  911 Tells Mom ‘Do What You Have To Do’: Okla. Mom Sarah McKinley Kills Intruder Justin Martin

                  A teenaged mother shot and killed an intruder after a 911 operator said she was allowed to defend her infant son and herself with force.

                  Sarah McKinley, 18, killed Justin Martin with a single gunshot wound on New Year’s Eve when he forced his way into her Blanchard, Okla. home and came at her with a long hunting knife, ABC News reports.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D124743

                  (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  I can understand why she did this. I’m not against people owning guns. But this self defence thing is the exception not the rule. There have been many cases of accidents such as people going to the wrong door or a spouse coming home late and being shot by their startled wife/husband. Again though, if someone passes a background check and goes through the cooling off period I don’t have a problem with them owning a gun. I am against people carrying guns in public areas and against any angry whack job on the street being able to purchase a gun the local Walmart. I don’t believe that those that think like are asking for too much. But once again, there is no compromise when it comes to the right.

                  That being said, I find this ladies reaction a bit disturbing. I watched an interview aired on Faux with her a little while ago and she laughed at the end of the story right after she explained how she shot him. Then in this article she’s posing with her best Annie Oakley pose. When my brother came back from Vietnam, he wasn’t even able to talk about it let alone pose and laugh about the people he killed. If most people had just killed someone I don’t believe that they’d be so happy about it, they might be a bit traumatised. I’m glad that she saved her baby but she’s a bit weird, not sure if I would trust her with that shotgun.

                  (-2) 2 Total Votes - 0 up - 2 down
                • The Gimlet Eye says:

                  “So you are saying that the German citizens and/or Jews could have stopped the Nazis if they were armed? Did they have gun control in Germany, were Germans not allowed to own guns? You believe that that the Germans would have prevented the that dictatorship if they were armed (which I believe they were),,,whose the naive one here!”

                  You don’t know your history, do you?; aren’t people like that condemned to repeat it?

                  Have you ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? Would the Jews have been able to resist without weapons? Would not more and better weapons have made a significant difference?

                  The Nazi Weapon Law of 1938? Wasn’t the disarming of Jews a top priority of the Nazis?

                  Why didn’t the German people stop the Nazis? Answer: Because they were just like us. They “trusted” their leaders to do the right thing. They didn’t. They “believed” in the promises of their leaders, they “denied” their crimes until they were FORCED to confront them.

                  A civilian populace unarmed in an open invitation to tyranny.

                  (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  I just read a website that said that Hitler was actually pro gun and allowed German citizens to own guns. I don’t know how accurate that site was so I’m not going to swear by it and I don’t have time to research it. But it doesn’t matter. You missed my point. Even with open gun laws you aren’t going to be able protect your self from ‘the state’ that you are so paranoid about. If they want you then they will get you. As was stated below, what would have happened if the students were all armed at Kent State. There would have been a slaughter.

                  Martin Luther King didn’t help blacks attain freedom by telling them to all go and buy guns. He attained freedom/rights by being smart. Education and voting is the best way to protect yourself from the state.

                  (-2) 2 Total Votes - 0 up - 2 down
                • The Gimlet Eye says:

                  You are not listening or thinking!

                  WE are the state, not those disgusting, corrupt, scoundrels who purport to represent us in Sacramento or D.C.!

                  (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
      • WiseGuy says:

        I believe your fears of an “unarmed public” are exaggerated. No need to worry, Americans will always be allowed to have guns. The gun nut fear mongers are simply suckers manipulated by the gun industry.

        Remember the gun industry push a couple years back, urging everyone to buy guns and bullets because “Obama wants to take your guns away.”

        What a crock!

        And let me make it clear once again: I am not “anti-gun” and I DO support the Second Amendment. I just don’t happen to believe that trying to get firearms into the hands of all Americans will make our community safer. I don’t believe in their is a social benefit in promoting gun use.

        I also believe that if anyone thinks their personal arsenal will overcome the forces of a “militarized, dishonest police force” they are mistaken. You’re not going to be able to out-gun the U.S. government. Those who think otherwise are likely to end up a danger to themselves and others.

        (-13) 21 Total Votes - 4 up - 17 down
        • mkaney says:

          You’re assuming that factions of the U.S. military won’t side with the people. In such a case, the difference can come down to whether the public has plenty of guns. I think that people are very much underestimating the current political conditions in the United States, the amount of corruption, the unsustainability of our system, and the degree to which representative democracy has been degraded.

          (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
          • WiseGuy says:

            If you think you can solve those problems with guns, you are wasting your time. It ain’t gonna happen that way. No way. Never. And there is no way Americans will have their guns taken away. Never in a million years. Better for a corrupt government’s reputation to kill armed citizens rather than the unarmed. Better for public relations.

            (-2) 6 Total Votes - 2 up - 4 down
        • mkaney says:

          Let me describe a situation in which arms can make a difference. The government requires a certain amount of legitimacy in order to rule. If that legitimacy is undermined by their actions, then they lose support. If a community is besieged by the government for some reason, and they are unable to defend themselves, it is quite easy for the government to keep the information suppressed. If, however, the community can (for at least a small amount of time) provide some defense for itself, while getting out information to the country as a whole, it can change the whole game. Obviously you can’t defend yourself against a nuclear weapon, but using such a weapon would immediately undermine the legitimacy of the government.

          (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
          • WiseGuy says:

            No way. You are believing a gun nut fantasy. The idea that our community will unify, grab their guns and fight off the forces of the U.S. military is ridiculous. It is more likely the community will end up fighting amongst itself.

            The whole notion that households full of guns will prevent the tyranny of a government as well armed at the U.S. government is a fantasy concocted by the gun industry.

            Imaging wasting your whole life believing in something so ridiculous.

            The answer to such looming problems and paranoia will not come from arming more citizens. Guns are not our savior. They are not magic. Get real, please.

            (-5) 11 Total Votes - 3 up - 8 down
            • BeenThereDoneThat says:

              O.k. how about this scenario. You live out in California Valley. You have someone come on to your properity with the intent to harm you and your family. Now the Sheriff (by no fault of his own) is way across the county at least an hours drive till he gets to you after you call 911. Is that a good enough reason to own a gun???

              (8) 10 Total Votes - 9 up - 1 down
              • WiseGuy says:

                Who the heck said you shouldn’t own a gun if you want to?

                The gun nuts are so wrapped up in their illusion that they actually believe jpeople are out to take their guns away. This is the kind of ridiculousness promoted by the fear mongering, profit-motivated gun industry.

                You want to own a gun, own a gun. But your a fool if you think that’s your guarantee about anything. MANY more people end up shooting themselves and/or their family members than ever shoot a criminal with “intent to do harm.”

                It’s striking how many people live their lives in fear of strangers showing up at their door with “intent do do harm.”

                And you want to know something else. Gun owners are robbed and/or killed just as often non-gun owners. But gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or their “loved ones.” Oops!

                (-4) 8 Total Votes - 2 up - 6 down
            • mkaney says:

              Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it would make a difference for people to be armed. I bet the insurgents in Iraq agree with me!

              (5) 7 Total Votes - 6 up - 1 down
              • WiseGuy says:

                What if the protestors at Kent State had been armed? What if they had friends with firearms who “had their back” and began shooting back at the National Guard? Do you think there would have been more than the four dead? Would protestors carrying guns have been more safe?

                What about at the Occupy Wall Street Protests? Will those protestors and our community be safer if they carry guns?

                (-3) 9 Total Votes - 3 up - 6 down
                • mkaney says:

                  What if the Kent State protestors had been armed? They COULD have been armed, they CHOSE not to. I applaud them for that choice. HOWEVER, if they had friends who “had their back” I bet you they wouldn’t have been shot at to begin with!

                  I didn’t say people had to all carry guns, I merely think it’s a good idea for the people to have guns. OWS is not an armed revolution, but again, if some of them did have guns, I guarantee you the police would think twice about using violent force. I seriously doubt the community itself would be any more or safe if those protesters were armed. But again, they have that right currently, and they chose not to, so your argument doesn’t really make any sense.

                  (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
                • WiseGuy says:

                  mkaney, I used to think you had some sense, but that has all changed now that you tell us you believe that if the Kent State protestors were armed with guns that the National Guard would have backed off and there would have been less bloodshed.

                  Are you frickin’ kidding? A well-armed National Guard is put face to face with a large crowd of armed protestors who are ordered to disburse and you think that would be a SAFER, LESS VIOLENT situation?

                  Why in the world would the National Guard back down when faced with an armed confrontation? The National Guard is TRAINED to NOT back down in armed confrontations. It is their job to confront firepower with even greater firepower.

                  Kaney, I really think you’ve gone off the deep end.

                  (-3) 5 Total Votes - 1 up - 4 down
                • mkaney says:

                  I can’t apply one layer deep.. so it’ll have to be here. I am crazy for thinking that similarly armed countries do not frequently attack each other. Isn’t what I’m saying about Kent State similar to the idea of the cold war? Sometimes having equal or similar force prevents a situation. I’m not suggesting they should have been armed, what you asked me was WHAT IF they were armed. You know where the police got really involved in gun control? When the Black Panthers started carrying loaded long guns at rallys. How did the police respond in that case as opposed to others?

                  (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
            • racket says:

              Waco.
              Montana Militia.
              Both are weird groups that I do not understand very well. Both used guns to forestall an overreaching government.

              (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                And look how that worked for them.

                (-1) 5 Total Votes - 2 up - 3 down
                • racket says:

                  Are you advocating that the govt can shoot your children from a helicoptor because you are weird? What are you saying Typo?

                  (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  At this point it’s just so hard not throw out sarcasm with every post, you people are just ridiculous.

                  (-3) 3 Total Votes - 0 up - 3 down
      • The Gimlet Eye says:

        Well said, mkaney.

        (4) 6 Total Votes - 5 up - 1 down
    • BeenThereDoneThat says:

      What is there to spin? You have an irresponsible gun owner. How is he any different than a irresponsible driver of a car or someone drinking alcohol, etc.? Does that make all the rest irresponsible? This guy here is an idiot and needs to have his guns taken away but I don’t see the need for others if they are responsible.

      (9) 11 Total Votes - 10 up - 1 down
      • WiseGuy says:

        YOU want to take away someone’s guns? Wouldn’t that be counter to the Second Amendment? Since when is there a law that “idiots” are not allowed to have guns? In America idiots have the same rights as non-idiots. America would not be America if its idiots were not allowed to have guns.

        (-4) 10 Total Votes - 3 up - 7 down
        • BeenThereDoneThat says:

          Where is it counter to the Second Amendment? I didn’t say they couldn’t have guns. I said (basically) if you act like an idiot (obviously in the way you handle them like this situation) then yes you should have a review of if you should continue owning guns. I’m all for gun ownership. I do think that if we are going to have everyone who buys one register it, then why not have them also be required to take a gun safety course as a matter of ownership?

          (-3) 5 Total Votes - 1 up - 4 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            Why should we have to wait until someone acts like an idiot? But I’m glad that you agree that there should be at least some type of restrictions. As wiseguy said, I’m not for taking peoples guns away, I am a former sport shooter and I enjoyed it. But there needs to be some guidelines and laws regarding who can own a gun as well as cool off periods. According to what people are saying here, even though this guy was a cop and a councilman he has a background that indicates that he shouldn’t have a gun. And now with this, that should be a given, he shouldn’t be allowed to own any firearms.

            (-4) 8 Total Votes - 2 up - 6 down
            • Side_Show_Bob says:

              Typo says: “Why should we have to wait until someone acts like an idiot? ”

              “Why shouldn’t someone have to show that they are competent to be a gun owner?”

              If we applied your constitutional logic to the First Amendment then most, if not all, of your comments here would not appear.

              You should try embracing our 2nd Amendment rights just like you embrace your 1st Amendment rights.

              I just love how all the anti-gun zealots come out of the woodwork over this story without knowing ANY of the circumstances of what happened but by God, there was a GUN involved so it has to be an “idiot” involved.

              (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
          • WiseGuy says:

            So, you believe that people should have to pass a government sanctioned test in order to own a gun? I can’t say I agree with you on that, and I bet there are a lot of gun nuts who are on my side on that one.

            You seem to think owning a gun is a privilege and not a right. Do you understand what you are advocating? Do you understand the Constitution that you refer to?

            (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
            • BeenThereDoneThat says:

              Your lost. You try and play both sides of the fence. I’m not biting. You say you don’t like what this guy did but you have no problems with guns but you want responsiblity but you don’t want a gun class. You sir are wishy washy and don’t know what side of the issue you are on.

              (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
              • WiseGuy says:

                I’m on the side of common sense. And yes, I don’t like when people accidentally shoot at people and homes. What is “wishy washy” about that?

                And I don’t think the solution to gun violence is to make everyone take a gun class or pass a government test in order to be allowed to own a gun.

                What is not clear about that?

                (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
                • BeenThereDoneThat says:

                  That’s fine then don’t regulate and don’t have a class, AND DON’T whine when accidents happen like this. You can’t have it both ways.

                  (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
                • WiseGuy says:

                  I can too have it “both ways.” Why not? I’m having it both ways right now and there is no problem whatsoever. Get real.

                  (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
                • BeenThereDoneThat says:

                  Wise if no problem what so ever then why are you posting all the comments? Get help my friend.

                  (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
    • Maxfusion says:

      Spin what? Are you one of the clinically insane that believe inanimate objects suddenly come to life and harm people?

      (4) 10 Total Votes - 7 up - 3 down
      • WiseGuy says:

        I don’t know of anyone who believes that, Max. Who have you been hanging out with?

        (-1) 7 Total Votes - 3 up - 4 down
        • BeenThereDoneThat says:

          I understand the point Max is making. If you listen to the media a lot of times they will say a gun killed so and so. Or if it was a drunk driver of a car, they will say a car hit and killed so and so.

          Why not say, the owner of the gun killed so and so. Or the driver of the car hit and killed so and so.

          Like it or not Max is right.

          (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
          • mkaney says:

            Yes, this reminds of a story I read the other day about texting while driving. A guy crashes into the car ahead of him, a bus crashes into him, and then another car into the bus. The cause of all the injuries was said to be the texting while driving guy who crashed first, completely disregarding that the guy driving the bus and the next car were following too closely. We like to obfuscate the cause of problems to serve our political interests.

            (3) 7 Total Votes - 5 up - 2 down
          • WiseGuy says:

            I don’t know what periodicals you read, or what news reports, but the ones I know of usually make it very clear that it was a person WITH a gun who killed so-and-so.

            I really have never run into ANYONE who believes guns kill all by themselves. Get real, please.

            (-4) 6 Total Votes - 1 up - 5 down
            • mkaney says:

              Yeah now that I think about it the texting example was totally different, and you’re right this is a straw man argument.

              (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.