I imagine most everyone has heard this story by now... An ex-con gunned down two firefighters after luring them to his neighborhood by setting a car and a house ablaze early Monday, then took shots at police and committed suicide while several homes burned.

The gunman fired at the four firefighters when they arrived shortly after 5:30 a.m. at the blaze in Webster, a suburb of Rochester, town Police Chife said. The first police officer who arrived chased the suspect and exchanged gunfire.

The gunman,  had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death with a hammer in 1980 at the house next to where Monday's attack happened, Pickering said at an afternoon news conference. the gunman, 62, was paroled in 1998 and had led a quiet life since, authorities said. Convicted felons are not allowed to possess weapons.

This goes to show gun regulations, can not stop a mad man. What's that you say, this is a mental health issue? Ok I will agree this most defenitly is a MH issue. Where was the mental health community on this one? The gunman was a convicted killer, he murdered his own Grandmother.

Did they think he no longer possed a threat to the commmunity? This brings me back to the debate of the Death Penalty. I am not an advocate of the death penalty, nor am I the type to seek vengance. This is however one of those times, where the death penalty had the potential to save some lives.

Why didn't the New York State Office of Mental Health, have the gunman off the street for good? I'm sure he was releasd from corrections with time served. That in it self does not deem an convicted Grandmother killer, fit to enter back in to society.


***disclaimer*** I am not oppossed to an AW ban, I simply protest to there effectivness.





-- Modified on 12/26/2012 2:38:15 PM

How he got the gun. Kind of hard to say anything about regulation one way or another without knowing how he acquired the weapon.

With your absurd logic we can rid of all laws. Why is that whenever gun regulation is discussed, every single absurd reasons comes out starting with “Gun don’t kill people but people do”, No shit brainiacs.

I am neutral on the AW ban, I say ban every scary looking gun you can find. My position,is I don't t believe an AW ban will yield the desired effect.

I don't know why other people say the things they say.  Do you know why you say the incoherent emotionally charged things you say?

The law is excons are not allowed to posses fire arms.

and in by 10-12 they passed the number murders from 2011.



""So Rahm, how's that gun control working out for you? The City of Chicago just saw its 436th murder of 2012, surpassing 435 murders from 2011. At this point, that means a total of 871 people murdered with no end in site as Chicago politicians push for more gun control ideas."" - KP

Yes it does matter. What matter is how a weapon, which arguably ought to be controlled, logistically ended up in his hands. Therein lies part of the problem. Forest/Trees Vern.

I believe he was convicted on manslaughter charges...logistically he should have never been free.

The point is the legislation (law) reads...Convicted felons are not allowed to posses fire arms... That means that particular legeslation (law) failed... Yes or No?

This post has nothing to do with how he obtained a firearm.

You are the king of poor strawmen. the law did not fail. It states a condition. Enforcement of the law failed, for a number of reasons. How did the weapon get into his hands?

I'm not concerend with how the firearm got in his hand. You want to make that the argument... Why is a convicted killer set free, with no mental health follow up?

Once those questions are answered, then we can ask how the weapon got in to his hands. Chances are he did not legaly obtain this weapon. Again this is not what I am concerned with. I am concerned with every other aspect, of this incident. The masses will focus on how he obtained the weapon. No need for everyone to focus on this one portion of the equation...

I can not strawman my own point, with the very same point

Napoleon would of referred to you as an amateur. Madmen, lunatics, criminals and felons are far more unpredictable variables versus proactively managing a discrete inventory.

What is it George Santayana said?

It's not a matter of agreeing that there is a problem. That's a given. If that fluffs your feathers bully for you.

Legally the intent to control the distribution of weapons is there. What isn't working is the mechanisms to support the intent. As it stands, the current gun control methods don't work. It is far easier to address this problem by reforming the supply side regulations in order to ensure bad people have a far more difficult time acquiring weapons.

Neither the left or the right wants to acknowledge that.