Friday, November 6, 2009
News Another Shooting Spree
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:01 AM
This time in Orlando. One person is dead and at least eight people are injured after a shooter terrorized several floors of a Florida office building.
MSNBC says that Jason Rodriguez, a former employee in the building, is a suspect in the case. The shooter is still at large.
Police Sgt. Barbara Jones identified the suspect as Jason Rodriguez, 40, a former employee in the building who she said was believed to be at large and armed. Rodriguez was believed to be wearing a light-blue polo shirt and blue jeans and driving a silver 2002 Nissan sport-utility vehicle with Florida plates D119UX, authorities said.A witness told WESH that the shooter had not worked there in more than a year. She was whisked away by police before she could say more.
Thanks to Slog Tipper Lacking Creativity.
Share via
3
Good thing guns aren't banned, or else the nut would have killed hundreds of people with a steak knife. Same thing in Texas, that nut would have killed thousands of people with steak knives instead of only 13 people with his legal civilian guns.
4
This is just a self-perpetuating formula for increased violence amongst the gun-toting crazies. Some lunatic decides to go on a shooting rampage, thus rousing gun-control debate, which stirs the pot and makes the other lunatics stock up on even more guns and ammunition to stop the government from taking them. Then one day, that person decides to go on an outing with their loaded weapons to send a message, or take out some frustration.
6
@2: "well-regulated" has been defined down to "any male over 18". it was determined long ago that this is an acceptable price for american society to pay for the right to bear arms, even if gun rampages with modern weapons were not explicitly anticipated. there is no legal or practical way to prevent this, politically powerful lobbies & constitutional absolutists prevent any rational discussion of the issue, and i expect it to continue for the rest of my life.
8
Guns don't kill people.
People with guns kill people.
I for one welcome our one shot per minute musket bearing forefathers who had no idea of the craziness that would be done in their names.
People with guns kill people.
I for one welcome our one shot per minute musket bearing forefathers who had no idea of the craziness that would be done in their names.
9
With a name like Rodriguez there has been no speculation of this man operating as a terrorist, eh?
10
Yes, I for one, as a good, bleeding-heart liberal, want to live in a place where my government protects me from all things that could possibly harm me. Guns? Gotta go. Knives? Forget about preparing food, people get hurt with knives. Bicycles? Nope, people get killed on them. Bathtubs? Outlawed - lots of people slip and fall in them.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Makes perfect sense to me.
11
5280: the one aspect you're missing from your "list of dangerous items" is that all but one of them have other uses than simply to kill humans.
12
@ 10, 11 beat me to it. The most tiresome argument against gun control is the "let's outlaw knives and anything else that can kill" meme because, with the exceptions of knives that are designed to hurt and kill, none of those things have killing and maiming people as the desired result of their correct use.
That said, I'm not pro-gun control anymore because I don't believe there's any practical effect to be achieved from it.
That said, I'm not pro-gun control anymore because I don't believe there's any practical effect to be achieved from it.
13
As a good social conservative, I want to live in a place where nothing is regulated despite what the constitution says. Anthrax? Should be available at Costco. Mustard gas? QFC. Pipe bombs? Best Buy. Assault rifles? Wal-mart, of course. Roadside bombs? Do-it-yourself!
I don't understand the difference between anthrax and assault rifles and bathtubs because Glenn Beck said they were the same!
I don't understand the difference between anthrax and assault rifles and bathtubs because Glenn Beck said they were the same!
14
I should make my statement at 12 clear... Most knives are meant to do specific jobs, like cutting vegetables and meat, or opening packages, or cutting rope, etc. When I say "knives that are designed to hurt and kill," I mean bayonets, switchblades, and the like - knives that are meant to be weapons.
15
There's no "practical use" for things that are designed to hurt and kill?" Being the magnanimous kind of guy that I am, I'll give you guys a chance to re-think that statement before I say anything more.
16
Hmm...I'm not taking sides on the gun debate, but Will @8 does bring up an interesting idea. When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, firearms technology was a long way from where it is now. There's a huge contrast between the damage that could've been caused by gun violence in 1791 versus the damage that can be caused by gun violence in 2009.
17
Hernandez, I don't think you want to know how much damage I could do with guns that were available in 1791. Sure, not as bad as today, but there were some pretty horrific things around back then.
18
I'll only add the same thing I usually add to these arguments:
Banning guns wouldn't get rid of gun crimes any more than banning abortion would get rid of abortion.
Banning guns wouldn't get rid of gun crimes any more than banning abortion would get rid of abortion.
19
5280: Yeah, I'm well aware of that, and I'm sure that with proper training and good aim, someone in the 1790's could go on a prodigious killing spree with the more primitive guns they had then. But man, it seems like these days any idiot with an assault rifle can inflict major damage with minimal skill. We've stuck to such a strict constructionist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment since its inception. At what point do we need to include the mitigating factor of technological advancement in our consideration of how it is enforced and upheld?
20
@ 15, that's not what I said. Please read again; it's gun control that I think is impractical, and my main point is that you can't discredit gun control arguments by comparing guns to other things that can harm, because other things that can harm aren't designed to do harm when used as intended. Guns ARE intended to do harm when used as intended. Thus the gun rights meme is silly.
21
@ Hernandez, the Founding Fathers also could not have predicted talk radio, Fox news, cyberbullying, etc.
That's the problem with the question you pose about the second amendment; it can just as easily be posed about the first.
That's the problem with the question you pose about the second amendment; it can just as easily be posed about the first.
22
Yes, Matt, guns can do harm when used as intended, but the clear implication from your saying that is that that's a bad thing. And quite simply, no, it isn't always. It can be a very good thing at times.
Now if y'all will excuse me for a while, I'm gonna go get some lunch.
Now if y'all will excuse me for a while, I'm gonna go get some lunch.
23
Luckily jezus was smart enough to leave the constitution open to new technology by denoting arms are to be "well-regulated," which is why anthrax and mustard gas and pipe bombs and nuclear weapons and ninja stars are well-regulated.
Unfortunately, jezus did not foresee the power and evil of the NRA and the Glenn Becks/5280's of the world to render the constitution powerless.
Unfortunately, jezus did not foresee the power and evil of the NRA and the Glenn Becks/5280's of the world to render the constitution powerless.
24
@ 22, no, you're reading into my statement. I don't imply that at all. it's just a fact that guns are intended to inflict serious harm to people - a fact that is not true about kitchen knives, cars, poisonous cleaning products, and whatever else you like to bring up to counter gun control arguments. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, sometimes you need something to inflict harm on another. It's a sad fact of life.
Yes, sometimes you need something to inflict harm on another. It's a sad fact of life.
25
Hey, this guy has surrendered. He was fired from this company in 2007 because of "performance issues" and believed the company had denied his unemployment benefits.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/orla…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/orla…
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Boy-Nerds Offended by Cootie-Ridden "Girl" Movie by Paul Constant
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS