Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Salt Lake City Bloodbath: Update


Okay. This is the last post before Steve and I get on a plane for a shoot in D.C. for the rest of the week, but this pretty thorough report comes from the Salt Lake Tribune.

Apparently, the shooter staked the mall earlier that day, looked lost and had a mullet.

Seriously, I wish people would get the hint that less guns on the street would be a good thing. Also, a mullet should be a disqualifying factor for gun ownership. We need to make guns in this society as hard to get as Universal Health Care. Then this kind of stuff wouldn't happen.

I've been reading some of the comments from people around some of the other sites and news organizations that have posted this story and I'm appaled at the amount of people who think this is a wake-up call to put more guns on the street.

I don't know... I'm just thirsty for knowledge about what happened. I mean, I work in such close proximity to that place and frequent it alot. I eat at the Desert Edge at least once a month and I see a movie there at least every couple of weeks. I even used to have one of those silent crushes on one of the girls who worked at that theatre.....

It's just a lot to think about I guess.

9 comments:

Aaron Kinney said...

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

If someone wants to cause havok in a mall, and kill a bunch of people, a bunch of strict gun laws wont stop him. A murderer can build a gun in his garage, gun laws be damned.

Now if you are at the mall, and someone goes apeshit on you, would you rather have a gun, or would you rather be unarmed?

Church Secretary said...

If you are at the mall, and someone goes apeshit on you, you had better hope that he has poor enough aim that you have time to pull your gun out before he puts you down. That assumes, of course, that the shooter has the decency to pull out his gun where you can see it before he sees you, and that he doesn't shoot you down with his first volley.

Of course, if everyone has a gun, and has it drawn and ready to fire, that would eliminate the aforementioned concern. As long as everyone with their drawn, loaded gun stays cool and doesn't threaten anyone else, there's no chance for a mishap, or for anyone going fatally apeshit. If someone under those circumstances does decide to go apeshit, then it stands to reason that every armed man, woman, and child in the vicinity will know exactly who the bad guy is, and there will be no confusing free-for-all of gun violence.

Of course, given that I don't particularly like guns (yes, I've handled and fired a few), I'd just as soon take my chances being unarmed. If the shooter doesn't get me with his first volley, then I figure (being unarmed as I am) my best bet would be to flee. I'll just hope that whatever armed hero I'm leaving behind has really good aim and nerves of steel under fire, and that the only one who gets shot after he gets going is the original apeshit fellow.

Furthermore, all of the above makes way more sense in the long run than trying to deal with the fundamental issues of violence and gun proliferation in our culture.

Church Secretary said...

I forgot to add something very important to the scenarios I listed above. It is important to remember that when good people fire their guns, the bullets will only either hit the bad guys or fly harmlessly into walls and ceramic planters. It's just like in the movies. When you see the police frantically clearing the scene of a shooting or armed hostage standoff, it is only because they are afraid the bad guy's weapon might harm innocent bystanders.

I just thought I should point that out.

Anonymous said...

If meeting apeshit-man with lethal force inevitably has such poor results, how is it that the shooter was taken down by an armed citizen with no apparent collateral deaths?

cowboy said...

Imagine the horror the man who was able to see the bodies through a telephoto lens.

His wife was among the missing.

Church Secretary said...

how is it that the shooter was taken down by an armed citizen with no apparent collateral deaths?

If that is what happened, then I'm sure it had nothing to do with that "armed citizen" being an OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER who was not under fire at the time of ascertaining the nature of the incident in progress and the whereabouts of the shooter.

By the way, what was your point?

David said...

Not surprisingly, some on the right are already trying to turn this tragedy into an "Islamofascist" thing.

Posted this afternoon at "Little Green Footballs":

#17 "Oh no...Sand People!" 2/13/2007 02:20PM PST

Sorry to OT so soon:
Police identify gunman as 18-year-old Bosnian:
[Link: deseretnews.com...]

The shooter in the Salt Lake City Trolley Square Plaza was a Bosnian Refugee. That means there is, according to Wikipedia , a 93% chance of him being a muslim.


Well, it's nice to know the righ-wing idiots are consistent, if nothing else.

Bryan said...

I think if there weren't guns, chances are good there wouldn't be gun deaths.

I mean, it stands to reason...

Church Secretary said...

Be careful with that word "reason," Bryan. Its frequent or appropriate usage betrays a liberal bias.