Gun carrying "patriot" fails to stop shooting

This is a sad story, but I have to point out that not only did this shooter use an "assault" weapon, that we're supposed to believe isn't actually dangerous, but this assault rifle was too intimidating for a gun carrying American to face to prevent the massacre.

I guess all the right-wing claims that everyone carrying guns would stop shootings wasn't actually true after all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo Sencion IHOP Shooting: Suspect Identified In Deadly Rampage That Leaves 4 Dead, 8 Wounded

CARSON CITY, Nev. — A gunman wielding an AK-47 opened fire on a table of uniformed National Guard members at an IHOP restaurant on Tuesday in an outburst of violence that killed four people, wounded eight others and put Nevada's capital city on high alert.

Five Nevada National Guard troops sitting together at the back of the restaurant were shot – two of them fatally. Another woman was also killed, and the gunman, 32-year-old Eduardo Sencion of Carson City, shot himself in the head and died at a hospital.

The shooter's motive was unclear, but family members said he had mental issues. He had never been in the military and had no known affiliation with anyone inside the restaurant.

Witnesses and authorities described a frantic scene in the bustling business district, in which the shooter pulled into the large complex of retail stores and shops just before 9 a.m. in a blue minivan with a yellow "Support Our Troops" sticker on the back. He got out and immediately shot a woman near a motorcycle, a witness said.

Ralph Swagler said he grabbed his own weapon, but said it was too late to stop the shooter, who charged into the IHOP through the front doors.

"I wish I had shot at him when he was going in the IHOP," said Swagler, who owns Locals BBQ & Grill. "But when he came at me, when somebody is pointing an automatic weapon at you – you can't believe the firepower, the kind of rounds coming out of that weapon."

The gunman went all the way to the back of the restaurant to the back area and opened fire, Carson City Sheriff Kenny Furlong said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/eduardo-sencion-ihop-shooting_n_951431.html

 

Hmmm, where to start? The HuffPo link, or the fact that nobody has ever claimed that all shootings would be prevented if everyone carried guns.

Thread fail.

 

As for your broad generalization(That carrying firearms would prevent/stop this crime) no, nothing is 100% effective, you know that. The world is full of variables.

This was a citizen carrying a gun, he tried to re-act and did not do so in time.

 

only one thing we can do....
GIVE EVERYONE EVERY GUN ON EARTH AND ALLOW THEM TO CARRY THEM ANYWHERE!!!

 

Another case proving that Arming public reduces crime is complete BS.

 

Any word on how the firearm was obtained?

 

This is pretty twisted way to exploit this tragedy to advance a political agenda. Do liberals have no shame? Do liberals have no sense of decency?

 

Most mass shooter's guns are legally purchased by the shooter.

 

The family knew he was mentally ill, but thanks to the ACLU, families can no longer have their mentally ill relatives committed to a mental hospital. So this man was a ticking time-bomb and it was only a matter of time before he went off.

Will liberals admit they are to blame for the fact that dangerous mentally ill people are allowed to wander the streets endangering us all?

 

Well to get to the first point assault rifles are rarely used in crimes. That still stands after this incident. If we start seeing this happen every day then you might have a point.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Second the whole thing about an armed populace is an armed populace, not an armed 1 guy being targeted. This might interest you, kind of explains why one man with a pistol doesn't have much of a chance against one man with an assault rifle who is already opening fire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

 

How was the weapon obtained...

 

A lot of people were hurt and killed because this man didn't take the chance so I'm sure he feels bad about it. He could have died a hero. Now he will live, but it might be worse for him because he did.

 

Not seeing anything but my guess is he bought it himself. They're also checking to see if it's automatic for some reason.

 

I'd like to know the reasoning behind the hostility expressed when there's suggestion of more strenuous efforts to ensure crazed individuals don't get their hands on weapons.

 

I'm sure he'll be fine. The weapon should be for his own protection, and he's alive.

 

Becuase owning a weapon is a civil right that you can't just have stripped from you without some due process of law.

Policies are now in place that make it nearly impossible for family members to act against thier own mentally ill by committing them.

The MOMENT there is documented proof an individual has been in some sort of mental facility for any length of time, they can no longer own a gun.

You want to stop mentally ill from buying guns? Get the mentally ill committed more often!

 

Thanks to the ACLU dangerous mentally ill people are wandering the streets. Many are homeless and live in parks or under freeway underpasses. This is the worst example of liberal "compassion" there is. Liberals literally don't care that the mentally ill are dying in the streets for neglect.

 

The problem is that such measures are usually made unreasonable. I remember a while back there was a proposal to ban sales to 'insane' people that included soldiers with PTSD. Such measures could be extended to cover people with everything from depression to autism (the percentage of the population with autism regularly increases with the expansion of its definition). I don't believe the mentally ill should be able to get ahold of guns, however I can totally see politicians playing fast and loose with such a law. I mean just take this article. According to it, "The current prevalence estimate is that about 20 percent of the U.S. population are affected by mental disorders during a given year." That's up to 1 in 5 citizens that could be denied their 2nd amendment right depending on how such a law were written.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2_1.html

 

you honestly think it was all the fault of liberals that America`s asylums closed?

Also if guns are supposed to be able to stop gun crime, but not when the criminal is already using his gun...WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT!?!?

 

What did the liberals vote to shut down mental hospitals?

 

I believe the parameters are a bit more narrow than you describe here... as involuntary commission is required (at least in some states). After police sent Cho Seung-Hui to psychiatric evaluation for a few days (following an incident in 2005) he was still able to legally purchase 2 firearms in order to kill 32 people... breaking no laws since he wasn't involuntarily committed. Your solution also assumes every individual with a mental illness will express it prior to attempting to purchase a firearm... a stretch to say the least, which is why a pro-active approach seems reasonable.


Do you oppose strenuous psychiatric evaluations prior to the purchase of weaponry?

 

No he will not be fine. His friends and neighbors will brand him a coward. If it were me, I'd rather go out in a blaze of glory than live with the shame this man will have to endure for the rest of his life.

 

I'd certainly oppose such a measure.

 

Can't win them all. I'm not going to run in somewhere and be another victim just because I'm armed.

 

Nope. They'll take anything to advance their political agenda. An armed populace is a monkey wrench to their ultimate goal of a totalitarian system.