Shooter injures 7 at Muckleshoot Casino nightclub

"The shooting suspect, a 42-year-old man, was arrested and booked Sunday into the King County Jail for investigation of attempted homicide for shooting his estranged wife, her male dance partner and her sister at Club Galaxy, according to Auburn police. The man's initial court appearance could be Monday."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/sound/article/Shooter-injures-7-at-Muckleshoot-Casino-1576483.php#ixzz1T6EI4rgY

what is wrong with the world lately...

It's a fair question to pose! So much violence and coldness.

someone near me got struck by lightning 2 weeks ago. when will it be safe to go outside again?

Too many on the street instead of my collection

know me so well.

Textbook case of an (attempted) intimate partner homicide: husband abuses wife, wife leaves husband, husband stalks wife and ultimately kills (or tries to kill) her. It's one reason I actually support the Lautenberg Amendment prohibiting individuals convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, or subject to a restraining order concerning a partner, the partner's children and/or their own children from possessing firearms.

I'm fairly certain that it's illegal to carry in Club Galaxy, as in any establishment declared by the Liquor Control Board to be off-limits to persons under 21.

In Canada, where it actually isn't all that easy for the average person to obtain a handgun illegally, spouses/partners and exes have to sign off on applications for firearms licences. A spouse with concerns about their safety (or the applicant's, if suicidal, say), may communicate those concerns to the licensing authority. This can also be done if the individual already has a licence and firearms and may result in revocation and removal.

Prohibiting someone who already has a firearm, or who (as in the US), would have not the slightest difficulty obtaining one, from possessing or carrying a firearm ... there's an expression for that, I think.

Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Followed by: crying over spilt milk. Even if the tears are sometimes of the reptilian variety.

No public policy will prevent all crime and tragedy.

Some are more effective than others at reducing their likelihood and numbers.

Prohibiting someone who already has a firearm, or who (as in the US), would have not the slightest difficulty obtaining one, from possessing or carrying a firearm ... there's an expression for that, I think.

Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

So if prohibiting people from possessing or carrying a firearm, after they have performed some action to warrant such a prohibition, is not useful, what, then, do you propose? Prohibiting people from possessing or carrying firearms before they perform some action to warrant such a prohibition?

And even if spouses/partners/exes have to sign off on applications for firearms licenses, or can have the removed after issue, isn't this just another action that warrants prohibition by someone who already has a firearm, or who would not have the slightest difficulty in obtaining one?

Do I really have to say the same thing over and over and over, year in and year out, thread in and thread out in the same 24 hours?


So if prohibiting people from possessing or carrying a firearm, after they have performed some action to warrant such a prohibition, is not useful, what, then, do you propose? Prohibiting people from possessing or carrying firearms before they perform some action to warrant such a prohibition?

Yes. In the case of handguns, for possession and obviously for "carrying". And semi-automatic long arms in both cases.

Not something that would happen overnight in the USofA, is it though?


And even if spouses/partners/exes have to sign off on applications for firearms licenses, or can have the removed after issue, isn't this just another action that warrants prohibition by someone who already has a firearm, or who would not have the slightest difficulty in obtaining one?

I'm not quite grasping this, but yes, obviously it warrants prohibition.

The obvious problem in the US is that prohibition is completely ineffective.

The population in question is one on which deterrence does not operate: abusive men tend to have psychopathic/sociopathic/narcissistic personality disorders and these are the absolutely most resistent to any deterrent measures. In simple terms, they don't give a shit about what anybody tells them to do or not to do.

And no one in the US has the slightest difficulty in obtaining a handgun illegally, since there are no effective deterrents on illicit transfers.

Yes. In the case of handguns, for possession and obviously for "carrying". And semi-automatic long arms in both cases.

Not something that would happen overnight in the USofA, is it though?

Thank you for the straight-up answer.

You are right. This is not something that will happen overnight in the USA. In fact, it is not something that will happen ever. Especially semi-automatic long arms. According to the FBI UCR, less than 300 people are killed every year with rifles of all kinds. This is half as many as are killed by hands and feet. There is no way you will see any move to outlaw rifles of any kind as long as this is the case.

The obvious problem in the US is that prohibition is completely ineffective.

I'm not seeing how it would be any more effective in Canada. Someone who wants to break the law can break the law. I bet it's not hard for criminals in Canada to buy firearms illegally.

The population in question is one on which deterrence does not operate: abusive men tend to have psychopathic/sociopathic/narcissistic personality disorders and these are the absolutely most resistent to any deterrent measures. In simple terms, they don't give a shit about what anybody tells them to do or not to do.

And no one in the US has the slightest difficulty in obtaining a handgun illegally, since there are no effective deterrents on illicit transfers.

So the question, once again, becomes a simple one. Do we want to remove the ability for everyone to own handguns simply because abusive men, among others, don't obey laws. The answer continues to be "no". And the reason for this answer likewise remains simple: The American culture understands that it is better to give people the option to have the tools to defend themselves, and tolerate the abuses of those who misuse firearms, than it is to make everyone be at the mercy of any violent criminal who chooses to abuse them who is stronger than they are.

I'm not seeing how it would be any more effective in Canada. Someone who wants to break the law can break the law. I bet it's not hard for criminals in Canada to buy firearms illegally.

I'd like to break the law by acquring, oh, a nuclear warhead. I really, really want to do it. So I can do it? Can you give me instructions, please?

You can bet all you like, but it simply is not easy for the type of person we are actually talking about -- abusive stalking former partners -- who are not "criminals" in the sense you are talking about, to obtain handguns. (Handguns being what you need if you plan to stalk someone to a public place and kill them there, as was the situation in the case at hand.)

Organized criminals and gangs have access to firearms, yes, through two routes: theft and smuggling. Theft of large "collections" held by people with special licences for that purpose, which collections generally include just the sort of thing gangs are looking for. And smuggling from the US.

The numbers of firearms in question are absolutely minuscule when compared to what the US is awash in. It really isn't "easy" for even these individuals and groups to get hold of these things. If it were, a group of them would not have spent two days blowtorching their way into a vault in an empty apartment to get the weapons inside, for instance.

So the plain fact is that licensing and registration DO effectively prevent firearms from reaching criminal hands in Canada. Once again, they do not stop ALL such acquisitions, but they very plainly reduce the numbers significantly. And there are measures that would reduce acquisitions through theft -- like prohibiting possession of the kind of arsenals that "collectors" are now allowed to possess in their homes or businesses.


Do we want to remove the ability for everyone to own handguns simply because abusive men, among others, don't obey laws.

No -- not because of that blah blah. Not because anyone "doesn't obey laws".

Because the amount of harm that occurs, that could be significantly reduced with the political and social will to do that, is intolerable, and the benefits of not prohibing access are sufficiently less significant and less important to outweigh the benefit of doing so.

It's intolerable to much of the world, anyhow. You know ... the normal / decent / rational part.

:rofl:


thanks for the laughs.

however:

No public policy will prevent all crime and tragedy.


I would like for you to expand on that statement . . .

ended speeding, and the deaths and injuries associated with speeding?

No?

Abolish them.

They are ineffective and an intolerable limitation on liberty.

How's that?

to amuse, thanks.

I'd like to break the law by acquring, oh, a nuclear warhead. I really, really want to do it. So I can do it? Can you give me instructions, please?

Are you seriously trying to make the argument that acquiring illegal firearms in Canada is as difficult as illegally acquiring a nuclear warhead?

I bet you in Canada or anywhere else in the world I could acquire an illegal firearm within 24 hours. Hell, I could manufacture one within 24 hours. I don't think I could say the same for nuclear warheads.

Because the amount of harm that occurs, that could be significantly reduced with the political and social will to do that, is intolerable, and the benefits of not prohibing access are sufficiently less significant and less important to outweigh the benefit of doing so.

It's intolerable to much of the world, anyhow. You know ... the normal / decent / rational part.

So I'll rephrase: Do we want to remove the ability for everyone to own handguns simply because of the amount of harm abusive men, among others, cause to occur with handguns?

Your opinion is that it would be more beneficial if we did than if we did not.

I just can't get behind that idea. I would rather us suffer having events like Utoya than have to live like the victims on that island did in the face of violence.

Here is the statement I was replying to:

Someone who wants to break the law can break the law.

Pretty categorial statement, eh?

So if I want to buy a nuclear warhead surely there is a way I can do it.


Are you seriously trying to make the argument that acquiring illegal firearms in Canada is as difficult as illegally acquiring a nuclear warhead?

Are you seriously pretending that you think that is what I said?

You do yourself no favours, friend.


So I'll rephrase: Do we want to remove the ability for everyone to own handguns simply because of the amount of harm abusive men, among others, cause to occur with handguns?

I'd suggest that you check back with whoever it was whose words you were "rephrasing". I have no idea who might have said something that sounds like that, but I'm sure you must have.


I would rather us suffer having events like Utoya than have to live like the victims on that island did in the face of violence.

Uh oh. I feel a Tonto coming on.

Uh ... who "we", white man?

I do think the Lone Ranger would likely have made more sense than you did in that sentence.

All of them purporting to be the voice of decency...

Carrie Nation

Harry J. Anslinger

Frederic Wertham

Phyllis Schlafly

William Bennett

Pat Robertson

Jack Thompson

Ann Coulter

Jodie Brown

Pamela Geller

And on and on and on...

I own cats, too. And a chesterfield, and several pairs of shoes.

Why look, me 'n Pat Robertson, we're twins!

to being shot in a shopping mall in Tacoma a few years ago. Her son remembered that he wanted to go into the Eddie Bauer store. When they got inside the store, the shooting started where they would have been had they not gone in the store. Some guy just started shooting at the people walking in the mall.

At first she was philosophical about the whole thing. But the truth is - she brings it up often and it has been years. I don't think she realizes how much she does talk about it. It changed her.

affects large numbers of people who don't show up in the homicide statistics that seem to be the sole focus of some discussions.

Recipe for driving the mentally vulnerable right the f*ck over the edge:

Take several decades of scaremongering based on the the "cold war"
add a massive dose of propaganda to promote American exceptionalism and sprinkle in the massively punitive and wasteful "war on drugs"
Combine with a much more intense fear propaganda campaign over the last decade with the shock of 911 and the "war on terror"
Marinade in serious and real economic distress and widespread joblessness.
Top with imminent environmental catastrophe.

Now enjoy the feast of carnage as those who have mentally attached to the right wing hatred start killing other members of the community around them.

I believe these killings are an externalization of the panic and emptiness that these individuals feel inside. Please note that unless they have suffered organic or traumatic brain damage I hold these people personally responsible for their actions.

I also believe that if Cannabis were a widely used medicine in all societies (as it once was not so long ago) that these kinds of violent outbursts would be greatly reduced or even eliminated. Cannabis opens the mind, calms the fears and allows for a much greater sense of empathy to be learned.

Depending on the person and the level of trauma that they live with the amount of need/use would vary. Cannabis has been shown to promote neuro-genesis in animal studies and I actually believe that it repairs the brains of those who use it. All mammals seem to have endocannabinoid receptors throughout their bodies. The cannabis plant augments our own internally released endocannabinoids so the cannabis plant is like a tool kit that can repair and/or cause to function better all of our systems.

It is the dollars y'all spend repairing your brains that fuel the drug wars. Blame the government, you can blame everyone and anyone but without YOUR habit and YOUR money fueling an illicit trade there would be nothing to fight over.

Chicken or egg, doesn't matter. Get the laws changed or quit supporting the carnage. Those are your choices.

or grow your own.

The killing of women by men is an expression of misogyny, the misogyny of the offender and the misogyny of the society that tolerates the violence women are subjected to throughout their lives.

There is very seldom any organic or psychiatric illness in these men. Personality disorders, damn right: sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, the whole gamut of ugly stuff.

Not that the post above really called for much response, but this needs to be said.

I support every woman's right to own and carry a pistol. Women tend to be naturally better shots anyway.

Tell us exactly how that woman owning and carrying a pistol would have saved her and the others from getting shot.

How it went down, to help you in answering the question.

Police say the shooting is believed to have stemmed from a domestic violence situation between the suspect and his wife. The suspect entered the club, and after discovering the woman was with another man on the dance floor, shot both of them with a handgun.

"She was in the company of another male. Both were dancing, both were out there on the dance floor," Auburn police Cmdr. Jamie Sidell told The Associated Press. "He went up there with a purpose, so we have to assume at this point he was looking for the female victim in this case."

The suspect then fired multiple rounds, which resulted in five additional people sustaining gunshot wounds. As the suspect started to flee the club, a casino security officer tackled the suspect to the floor where he was detained. An off-duty Auburn police officer, who was working at the casino, arrested the man.

not that it would have worked in this case. Specifically I was responding to: