You are likely aware of the general facts of the shooting in the theatre in Aurora, COLO last July — 12 dead and 58 wounded before the shooter surrendered to armed police outside the theatre.

However, you are probably not aware of the San Antonio, TX, Theater Shooting on Dec. 17, 2012 (two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elem. School). On that night, Jesus Manuel Garcia, age 19, went to a restaurant near the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 movie theater, looking for his ex-girlfriend (apparently with the intent of killing her). She wasn’t working, but, nonetheless, he drew a pistol and began shooting. The customers fled the restaurant, across a parking lot and into the theatre. One man was shot in the parking lot, and Garcia also shot at a police car, striking the windshield but the officer in the car was not injured. Garcia entered the theatre and there are reports his his continuing to shoot. He entered a bathroom in the theatre. No one was in it. However, an armed security guard (who is also a woman, and an off-duty San Antonio policeman) entered the theatre’s lobby. Garcia came out of the bathroom holding his pistol. She ordered him to drop his gun. He did not, and she shot him 4 times, wounding him.

So, the score in this mass shooting incident was 0 dead, 2 wounded (including the shooter — who faces attempted capitol murder charges because he fired on a uniformed policeman).

But, generally, only the local media and certain bloggers have reported this story. Why hasn’t it been widely reported? Could it be (like the incident involving the Bartlesville, Okla, H.S. on Dec. 15, 2012 –planned mass shooting and use of bombs thwarted by police after report by fellow students) that the perp doesn’t fit the narrative? In both cases they have Hispanic Surnames. Or, could it be that it is because an armed citizen (which is what an off-duty cop is) stopped the shooter before there were many dead and wounded? Or, could it be because, in the words of the journalism truism “If it bleeds, it leads”, and in neither of the incidents were there deaths (or in San Antonio, even many wounded)? I do not know which of these (alone or in combination, or it there are other reasons) explains why the national media essentially ignores stories about use of guns preventing mass casualty attacks. However, time and again, reports of such stories are limited to local media (sometimes with a mention in the national media, but often without any). However, when a white teen — especially from a privileged background — starts shooting, it’s national news for quite a quite a while, together with demands for “gun control”.

So, while I understand your concern, I wonder whether your understanding of the “facts” on which you base your opinion is due to biases in the national media’s reporting?

Bob

I don’t believe this to be the case. The German Weimar Republic had been controlling the sale of weapons and ammunition since 1919. In 1928, the Republic passed a comprehensive law requiring weapons to be registered for those who believed in ideas the government believed were contrary to the good order of the nation. This was mostly Communists. In 1933 this continued with even more stringent laws. When the Nazis were voted into power in 1933, they continued the assault on weapons ownership for alleged Communists, but also included provisions saying Jews could not own weapons of any type.

In 1935 a new rule, expanding on the Weimar law of 1928 included not allowing Communists and Jewish weapon ownership. Finally, in 1938, a law was passed not allowing Jews to possess weapons, ammunition or even participate in the manufacture or distribution of anything associated with a firearm.

At no point in time did the German government ban possession of weapons by all German citizens.

You all remember when we sent a whole lot of 18 yr. old’s 10,000 miles away with .22s (.223 AR 14?s) to prevent the spread of communism?

No, and neither do you. There was no AR-14 at the time. The AR-14 was at best a test platform from which the AR-15 and later the M-14 evolved. The AR-14 was never put into production for large scale military purposes. I suspect you might be be thinking of the M14, which did not use .223 ammunition, but rather the NATO 7.62 (Winchester .308) ammunition.

I also learned in that public school long ago that the Second Amendment wasn’t about squirrel and rabbit hunting.

That may or may not be true. The Second Amendment was certainly not limited to “militias” either. As has been said, the Second Amendment is primarily to allow all citizens to defend themselves against all threats, up to and including a tyrannical government. On the other hand, it is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers ever thought the government would try to remove weapons from people who were “squirrel and rabbit hunting” as for many, that was a source of food. (See Heller v. DC)

I’m just saying maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions perhaps some analytical and and critical thinking occur.

I understand what you are saying but at the same time, whenever I hear “look to Nazi Germany” in a gun control discussion, I think that is “knee jerk” as well. (Godwin’s law.)

Why not concentrate on something positive and waste less effort on trying to ultimately change the Bill of Rights.

To many of us, defending the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own weapons is a positive effort. Your mileage may vary.

The arguments for gun control and what constitutes an assault weapon are ludicrous.

You all need to remember 1935.

1935 you say, what about it?

In 1935 the German Reichsfuhrer made the German state “safe” by banning all private ownership of firearms and confiscating all the ones that could be found. I believe I learned about that in a public school around 1967 in 10th grade history class. But since it was a public school the lessons are probably not acceptable or politically correct now.

You all remember when we sent a whole lot of 18 yr. old’s 10,000 miles away with .22s (.223 AR 14’s) to prevent the spread of communism?

I would suggest that everyone check out the website at jpfo.org for some information you should probably read prior to commenting about ammunition, assault weapons, revolvers vs glocks, etc.

The NRA actually negotiates the Second Amendment instead of standing firm for gun owners.

I also learned in that public school long ago that the Second Amendment wasn’t about squirrel and rabbit hunting.

Maybe also ask why the Attorney general has answered not about ” Operation Fast and Furious” which illegally placed ‘assault weapons’ in the hands of real criminals.

I’m just saying maybe instead of knee-jerk reactions perhaps some analytical and and critical thinking occur.

Not criticizing any one or any thing that has been posted, just I’ve seen the same gun control stuff over and over since the 60’s. Why not concentrate on something positive and waste less effort on trying to ultimately change the Bill of Rights.

As opposed to: How do we protect ourselves/children/innocents from said loopies? A much harder solution…

Are people really arguing that things would be different if this was a low-powered 22 round and he was just required to shoot more?

Guns are desinged by good people to stop bad people. You want something that injures the crazed maniac who is attacking you or you want to put him down? Personally, I want to put him down.

Also: Do high-powered hunting rifles (also semi-automatic) exceed the allowable killing capability? How ’bout pipe bombs?

I’m not trying to be offensive or snarky…OK, maybe a little snarky on that pipe-bomb comment :)…but I really think that regulating more things about guns/ammo/licensing/wait-periods/etc will have no effect on crazy people who will find a way to do these horrible acts.

Be it guns, knives, bombs or a fast moving vehicle driven through the school, this guy would be able to kill just by breathing and thinking up ways to kill.

Since Columbine over 100 planned attacks on schools have been identified and stopped before they occurred. So, we don’t just have the actions of dead mass killers to analyze. We have many of those who would have become mass killers to interview, analyze, and find out why they planned to become copycat killers. Rather than spend time on banning guns with scary features — which, given the strict gun control law in Conn., (the AR -15 variant used met the requirements for Conn’s strict law) NY (in Rochester, a felon didn’t have problems getting an AR -15 variant) and Chicago (500 gun homicides in 2012 so far, and we still have the New Years weekend to go), haven’t been effective — wouldn’t you like our political leaders to spend time on doing something that might actually avert future deaths? Once the salient characteristics are identified, school administrators, teachers and staff can be trained on the danger signs to look for, and how to respond (and what to do if there is an attack.*) So can school security personnel, police and first responders. “Assault weapons” bans and strict gun control laws have failed. It’s time to try something else that may be effective, such as learning why some people do this, and making preparations that are based on reality and not ideology.

*The librarian at Columbine had students “hide” from the shooters in the library — a room with glass walls that the shooters could look in and see students there, trapped with no way to escape. Unfortuately, that sort of thing happens when people react to an emergency for which they have no preparation or training.

.

The definition of an assault weapon is not a “nuance,” Ron. I cannot believe that you would walk into a courtroom trying to defend a person accused of “robbery” without knowing the definition of “robbery.”

So when you say “let’s ban assault weapons” without defining, wanting to define, or knowing what defines an “assault weapon,” the logical conclusion is that your stance is an opinion based on ignorance – an ignorance that you have no desire to correct.

So I have no interest in debating the details. People almost as smart as you can figure that out.

Once again, the definition of “assault weapon” is not a “detail.” As to the second part, I am sure you think you are being cute, but the fact of the matter is that you put out an opinion on something and when that opinion was challenged, you resorted to your two favorite tactics, that of saying your don’t care (or other people have misread you) or attacking the messenger.

The American people in growing numbers want to ban assault weapons.

Americans in growing numbers want caps on legal judgements and fees lawyers can charge. Americans in growing numbers want tort reform.

You for that as well?

President Bush, an enemy of liberals everywhere because of his hard right opinions on most issues of our day, supported and apparently supports the ban. Can we all agree with President Bush? Or no?

Yes, President Bush supports and supported the Assault Weapons Ban. The problem is, Ron, that the Assault Weapon Ban would not have changed anything when it came to Newtown. That’s the point. That is why I went over what was in the Assault Weapon Ban because it was worthless. In fact, a DOJ report issued at the end of the life of the Assault Weapon Ban stated the ban had no effect on killings or crimes.

The question we are all wrestling with is what is best path to go down when you add all of the pluses and minuses together.

What “we,” Kimosabe? You are only saying that we should re-institute a ban that was totally ineffective. Your reasoning is not based on fact or logic, only that “people want it” and “George Bush supported it.”

You are perfectly happy to go down the same worthless path that we have tried before because that will make you happy. It won’t make you safer. It won’t change things.

That is why your position and statements are so disingenuous, Ron. You aren’t interested in actually working to make people safer. You just want to parrot and do the same ineffectual things we have done before.

As proof, the assault weapon ban would not have affected Lanza at all. Before Lanza fired a shot in the school, he had broken over 20 laws dealing with firearms and theft. Yet your proposal is to reinstate the ban on assault weapons (the one the wouldn’t have changed anything in Newtown) and make more laws.

Albert Einstein was right on “insanity.”

So I have no interest in debating the details. People almost as smart as you can figure that out.

Here is what I know. The American people in growing numbers want to ban assault weapons. President Bush, an enemy of liberals everywhere because of his hard right opinions on most issues of our day, supported and apparently supports the ban. Can we all agree with President Bush? Or no?

Melvin, you mean that the ban did while not end all tragedies like this? If that’s the case, we should forget it? If we ban guns completely, fully set aside the conservative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and make it a death penalty offense to own a gun, we will not eliminate all mass killing tragedies with or without guns. So what? The question we are all wrestling with is what is best path to go down when you add all of the pluses and minuses together.