How do they figure he won't try to see his new boyfriend again?
A hard-as-nails maths teacher in Colorado has received the grateful thanks of his community after barehandedly tackling a gunman who had opened fire at his school. The BBC reports that a suspect named as Bruco Strong Eagle Eastwood, 32, allegedly commenced firing at pupils with a rifle in the car park at Deer Trail Middle …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I can only guess that the judge decided to make up what he assumed would be a ludicrous figure for bail and then got the shock of his life when the guy turned around and produced the necessary mill...
Still poor form - someone who starts shooting up a school yard (even if hes stupid enough to try and use a bolt action - i mean fully autos arent excatly hard to obtain in the US!) is not exactly someone who should be out on the streets...
Common sense suggests that it wasn't a bolt or lever action because he'd have reloaded within a few seconds at most. Certainly by the time someone would take to get to him on foot, and the clue is him ditching the rifle because he couldn't reload it in time. Nobody would ditch a bolt or lever action rifle for fists.
It was near certainly something along the lines of a .22 calibre single shot breechloader with the rounds in his pocket under his car keys and assorted change. That would take long enough for someone to close with him before he could get it reloaded.
According to the Denver Post, Bruco stole his father's hunting rifle, which is indeed a bolt action rifle in .30-06. That also explains why the mass media hasn't started the 24 hour, nonstop, nausea inducing, coverage. It would be so much more sensational if; he, a man with a long history of violence and mental instability, purchased a full auto AK-105 from slain Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh just days prior to (somehow "prior to" is so much flashier than "before", don't you think) the attack in the basement of the local Filene's... OMG!!!
That said, the man was a few cans shy of a six pack and perhaps he thought his hands were more accurate. After all, reports are that he was close enough to speak to the kids just before letting the rounds go and he hits one in the arm and another in the leg... not exactly Ed McGivern, this one but I suppose the kids wisely didn't sit still as he shouldered the gun.
Give the educator a medal and a nice fat reward cheque!
As for the courts... Let me get this straight?
Creep rocks up to a school and starts shooting at kids..and they then grant him bail? HOW????
This guy clearly has a deep rooted psychiatric issue which urgently needs attention and should prevent him being out in public without a minder and handcuffs! The judge that allowed bail should also be seen by a shrink to see if he/she has any grip on reality.
This is just the sort of story that makes the US justice system look like a clown college
"what is it with americans and guns seriously they think its there best friend or somthing always people going about shooting in schools i mean wtf america needs to sort its gun crime"
You're either using a verbiage generator like amanfrommars or you've been hitting the espresso a bit hard.
It's called having a *written* constitution with amendments (you many not agree with it but at least *everyone* can read it.), one of which is the *right* to bear arms. It's one which is *vigorously* defended by the NRA and the gun mfgs.
America's problem is that most of the gun deaths occur in cities, most of the gun owning support is everywhere else, which as the US is pretty big covers a *lot* of ground. Colorado is also, IIRC an "open carry" state. No license required *provided* they are in plain sight. Not sure if possession is a crime but I'm pretty sure they are also a death penalty state.
" out its a joke. people over there shouldnt have guns in the first place but thats america for you. you hardly hear of any gun crime at schools here in the uk because guns are banned "
Technically gun ownership in the UK is not banned. It is however *very* difficult to do while complying with regulations. You might like to look up "Dunblaine," where the *total* failure of the Police to detect or control an active pedophile was spun into a hysterical crackdown on all *legally* held weapons*. It's interesting that as he set up his own boys group weather he would have needed a CRB check.
in this country and so they should be i hate them people who use em are sick should be locked up and the key thrown away.
Congratulations I think you're a shoe-in for the Private Eye "Great bores of today" column. It's your ability to do that in 1 sentence that's the key. If you can speak it out loud your lung capacity must be formidable.
*those holding weapons illegally IE criminals, did not give a stuff.
If it is enshrined in the constitution why is it ring fenced by all sorts of additional controls about what sort of arms and where you can bear them (concealed, full automatics, nuclear weapons, etc) dependent on state and territory. It seems to me that despite its stated 'freedoms' the US is the same as everywhere else; similar views varying only slightly by degree.
As a UK citizen I could perhaps feel safer having a gun however I would feel much less safe knowing my neighbours all have guns.
"As a UK citizen I could perhaps feel safer having a gun however I would feel much less safe knowing my neighbours all have guns."
Somehow that makes for a very odd statement. And it appears you must have real gits or loons for neighbours. Presumably you would also not accept a neighbours invitation for dinner or an ale lest it be poisoned. It must be difficult indeed to walk past their door knowing that at any moment they could spring from behind it with knives, spears or any odd weaponry. Is it easy to sleep with the knowledge they could slip in under cover of night with a ready garrote in hand?
Silly, I know but inasmuch as they could be armed to the teeth without your knowledge, is it really better not knowing they all have guns?
Oh, I see. You're misunderstanding on purpose for comic effect.
I get on with most of the people in my street. However if somebody is drunk, angry, stupid, temporarily insane or any combination of the four, then their ownership of a handgun is not a good thing and my ownership of a gun would be unlikely to figure in their calculations. All of the above have occurred on my street, on one notable occasion concentrated into the same individual. He raved for a bit and went home, nobody died. Yes there are scenarios where I could use a handgun to defend myself and my family but they are generally quite rare occurrences.
that the "right to bear arms" is qualified by a statement which makes it clear that it is expressly for the purpose of forming a militia against an attempt by the British Crown to re-assert supremacy over its colonists.
The amendment wasn't created for shooting burglars/gang members/schoolchildren/deer or anything else - just invading armies.
That's why the NRA are terrified to test the amendment in the Supreme Court, because they know it was never intended to be abused in the way it is.
@John Smith 19
Just to clear things up, I'm a Brit who lives in the US. Let's run through your points just to show how ludicrous or irrelevant some of them are.
"It's called having a *written* constitution".
Hmmm, this is an interesting one. The first country to have a written constitution was England. The document was called the Magna Carta, and is the basis of both the US constitution and most constitutional law in western countries. The interesting thing about constitutions is that they can usually be amended. There are many reasons why the second amendment isn't re-amended to change the "right to bear arms", and you rightly identify the strength of the gun lobbies. The reality is that given the problems with gun crime in the US, there really should be a rational debate on gun ownership.
"The Right to Bear Arms".
I always find this argument thoroughly intriguing. Does a US citizen have the right to have a 50 megaton Nuclear Weapon. If the answer to that is no, then you have immediately agreed that a limit on the right to bear arms is acceptable (if the answer is yes, then you have other problems to resolve). The only question that remains is where the limit should lie. I'm not going to specifically argue for any given limit - go back a paragraph and read my view there, I believe that there should be a rational debate on this. But given that you have (most likely) agreed the rationale behind having a limit (and I suspect the supreme court would agree with this), all we have to do is figure out where the limit could be. The constitution does not clearly identify what arms you have the right to bear - just that you can bear arms. Those arms could be flick knives, or nunchucks, or pistols, or automatic rifles, or tanks, or nuclear weapons. But they could equally be limited to a maximum of less-than-lethal weaponry without going against the constitutional clause - you could allow home-owners to defend themselves with tasers, or something similar, whilst still outlawing guns.
Finally, speaking from my Brit in the US position, I'm certain that these debates are unlikely to happen in the US. Unfortunately, as with so many of these issues, the US is so polarised (between the middle states and the coasts mainly, but also north/south) that debates are not rational. Just look at recent debates on healthcare, abortion, gun control, or so many other things. You can see the polarisation by just looking at the way the South used to vote for the Democrats consistently, but now consistently vote for the Republicans, primarly because the Democrats pushed through anti-apartheid legislation that forced equal rights for all races.
I think I did what a few here have (maybe) done and said "How TF did this guy get released on bail ?" - but, reading the reports from the US media is would seem that he is still being *held* on $ 1 million bail - i.e. he has not been released.
It still beggars belief that he would even be offered bail mind you ("Don't worry people - we only release rich psychopaths")
To explain - teachers in ye olde times (ie the 70's and 80's =P) had a particularly bad habit of wearing cordurouy pants, turtle neck jumpers and other associated clothing. Anytime you've seen a parody of a teacher or professor it will be this particular look that you get...
So calling the old boy a cordouroy is just the reg's humourous take on all teachers...
Is it something about guns per se, US gun culture or mass killing in general.
One could wreak death and injury on similar or larger scales with poison, arson or indeed a motor vehicle.
Certainly the removal of all legally owned firearms might do nothing to prevent a determined attacker.
On the other hand almost all psychopaths lack imagination q.v. terrorist acts can only involve passenger aircraft. Indeed lack of imagination and thereby empathy may be what creates them.
Amazing how often Americans only ever quote the "Right to bear arms" part of their Second Amendment. Maybe you missed the qualifier which makes it painfully obvious that said right was only ever intended for *organized militia*.
Here's the quote in full:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (This is the wording ratified by the States; Congress passed a version with slightly different punctuation.)
Now, take a look at the history books. Towns, villages and the like were required—in the era before formal, standing armies and organised police forces—to respond to a "hue and cry", to address criminal activities and so forth. THAT is what the Second Amendment is referring to. Today, we'd call this kind of law enforcement "vigilanteism", but it was once an accepted form of maintaining law and order.
While vast rural areas of the US have a valid claim that it can easily take over half an hour for a policeman to get to their property, this does not explain the utterly bizarre claim that everyone in *urban* areas has a "right" to carry guns around while doing their weekly shopping as if this was what the Second Amendment's authors originally intended.
If, as you say, Congress passed a version with different punctuation, it could change the amendment to mean the opposite of what is intended.
As an example, consider the following punctuation change in one of Anonymous' parodies of an anti-rape ad. The original ad states: "Rape in marriage is a crime. No man has the right." The Anonymous parody states: "Rape in marriage is a crime? No, man has the right!" See how a statement can be completely reversed with the judicious addition of a few punctuation marks?
So what's the modified version that Congress passed, just out of interest?
> one of which is the *right* to bear arms.
> It's one which is *vigorously* defended by the NRA and the gun mfgs.
But it ain't an *unconditional* right, otherwise all these people would have guns:
* mental institution inmates
* children under 14
* anyone within shooting distance of the president
* airline passengers
Until the NRA stands up and demands gunrights for all merkin cits, it's a wussy.
The Littleton Gazette article reports that he's being held on $1million *cash* bail, so it's very unlikely he'll be out wandering around before trial. A quote from the article:
"The man accused of wounding two middle school students in a community still haunted by the Columbine massacre had become increasingly erratic in recent weeks, yelling at imaginary friends and complaining that eating macaroni and cheese made too much noise, his father said Wednesday."
"The older man said that his son used to talk to himself a lot, but in the past month, he had begun yelling. The younger man also complained that the refrigerator was too loud and that certain foods made too much noise, his father said."
The only problem with this is that you get the same behavior from certain type-A personalities with cellphone headsets.
"No officer, I'm not a flaming homicidal whacko. My earpiece battery needs a charge."
Hard to tell the deranged from the executroids any more. Not that there ever *was* that much difference.....
<quote>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</quote>
Why does it exist? Something called the Quartering Acts whereby Americans were forced to supply quarters and food to British soldiers without recompense.
See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Act.
<quote>The Quartering Act was one of the reasons for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which authorized a militia. Standing armies were mistrusted, and the First Congress considered quartering of troops to have been one of the tools of oppression before and during the American revolution.</quote>
History and ill-judged Parliamentary legislation gets us to where we are today.
You only missed by one as you are thinking of the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
"The Founding Fathers' intention in writing this amendment was to prevent the recurrence of soldiers being quartered in private property as was done in Colonial America by the British military under the Quartering Act before the American Revolution (1775–1776)."
Nice try tho, but "no soup for you!"
"One could wreak death and injury on similar or larger scales with poison, arson or indeed a motor vehicle.
Certainly the removal of all legally owned firearms might do nothing to prevent a determined attacker."
Certainly, however the thing about guns, or at least the thing about guns as far as us in the UK are concerned, is that guns are sooooo lethal.
We don't have a very big gun sport community in the UK (and then it's only really static target and clay pigeon) and game hunting is generally not legal.
The thing is, to poison someone or go about arsoning stuff takes a degree of planning and thought, and must be done in real cold blood. Knifecriming someone means you have to get in real personal like, but shooting is quick, impersonal and extremely deadly, plus guns are a great leveller, which is not a good thing when tempers boil over. If you are disrespected by a 6'16" body builder down the pub you probably just let it go, but if you can get your hands on a gun.....
Not to mention the obvious arms race required (the burglars all have guns so you need a gun to defend yourself - the homeowners all have guns so you need a gun if you are going out robbing).
But finally I think the real problem we in the UK have with guns (typically us men) is that we are fascinated by them, but we are afraid deep down of what we ourselves would do with them. I know if guns were legal here and I owned one, I would be sent to prison on the basis of pretty much each daily commute.
>>>But finally I think the real problem we in the UK have with guns (typically us men) is that we are fascinated by them, but we are afraid deep down of what we ourselves would do with them. I know if guns were legal here and I owned one, I would be sent to prison on the basis of pretty much each daily commute.
Uh huh - that's called projection - when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else (usually without cause). Thanks for your honesty, though - I'm impressed.
I saw this on a gun forum I frequent. Yes I do live in the UK and yes i do shoot guns legally.
Doctors vs Gunowners
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do..'
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!
That's skewing statistics somewhat. Now compare the number of deliberate deaths caused by doctors and the number of deliberate deaths caused by guns...
Living with a firearms officer and having had a reasonable amount of experience with firearms in my younger years (when scouts were still allowed to do such things) and later as a cadet instructer, it's not THAT easy to accidentally shoot someone. Generally it's quite deliberate since one of the first rules of firearms safety is never point the weapon at something you aren't prepared to kill.
I'd assume they explain that to people buying guns in America too, and certainly the yanks I've met all have a good grasp on firearms safety.
Unfortunately the only statistic I could find was International Journal of Epidemiology 1998 linked from Wikipedia... That quoted figures for 1993 so I accept they're out of date.
That put accidental deaths per 100,000 of the population at 0.59, firearm suicide at 7.35 and firearm homicide at 3.72.
Of course that's per head of the population are victims as opposed to per head of the population that actually do it. I think.
Brazil tops the list though, followed by Estonia and Mexico and then America. So considering the number of firearms in America it's not THAT bad.
Kind of worrying that physicians in the US cause THAT many accidental deaths though.
"never point the weapon at something you aren't prepared to kill."
Really? I've never been prepared to kill paper targets, tin cans, clay pigeons, etc. yet I've pointed weapons at many of them. I could believe "aren't prepared to shoot" but kill... I think that is just the sensational version made for headlines. Also, as I learned it, it was "Keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction". You can see it here; http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp
that most people who are seeing a doctor already have something potentially life-threatening wrong with them, and that most of the time the doctor solves this problem.
I can't think of many situations where being shot would actually save your life.
"hold still, while I shoot your inguinal hernia back in"
What exactly is an 'accidental' death at the hands of a doctor? The doc tried to save you after your heart attack, but failed? Transplanted the wrong organ? You died in hospital with AIDS from a skin cancer? Terminally ill patient takes an overdose of a prescribed medicine?
In the US (population ~300 million), given an average lifespan of 75, about 4 million people die every year. I find it hard to believe that 120,000 (3% of deaths) are really 'accidental' deaths caused by doctors, meaning that without the doctor's 'assistance', the person wouldn't have died....
Also, by your own admission, you saw this on a gun forum somewhere - nothing against people who like guns*, but some of them have agendas and may possibly play fast and loose with the facts...
* Well, actually, usually yes...
Back in the Eocene, I went to HS not far from Littleton. Counting only math and sciences, the teachers included: chemistry teacher, sometime boxer; geometry teacher, 20-stone wrestling coach; algebra, football coach, known to have fast fists; biology teacher, wrestling coach, former Green Beret.
This was the high tide of polyester, so I don't recall any of them wearing corduroy. In any case, the chemistry teacher was a cleric.
>>>If Americans didn't find a few dead kids an acceptable loss they would get rid of privately owned guns. They obviously think it's a price worth paying.
And cars, swimming pools - hot dogs, too, by all accounts. Let's not forget that various American statistics define children as up to 24 years of age - hardly a child. Let's not forget the age of gang-bangers, too - some are quite accomplished killers by the age of 16 - hardly the poor, helpless child we tend to think of when the word "children" is bandied about.
Here are some figures I found interesting: Deaths among children in the USA: motor vehicles (41%), suffocation (21%), drowning (15%), fires (8%), pedal cycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (1.9%), environmental factors (1.5%), firearms (1.1%) and medical mistakes (1%).
So - which objects would you like to get rid of first if you are honestly concerned about children's deaths? Let's hear it.
The reason the US has a tradition of gun ownership is that they were necessary to kill ANIMALS. Guns were primarily used to hunt for food and protect oneself from predators. The reason gun ownership is much more popular amongst rural folks is that they still need them for protection and still use them to hunt for food. The first time you come face to face with a bear or cougar while walking in the woods, you'll wish to hell you were carrying a decent firearm.
I think you ought to reread your history with regards to firearms tradition in the U.S. The reason for the whole "right to bear arms" thing has nothing to do with hunting animals. It has to do with keeping guns to hunt people. People who might try to oppress or invade the country.
At close range, anyway. Good article here:
Couple of choice quotes from it: "Current law enforcement rule of thumb is that an attacker with a knife can kill you before you can draw your weapon if he’s within 29 feet", "statistically, most police shootings happen in the space of 1-4 meters (about 3 to 13 feet)"
Outside of hollowpoints and other extreme ammunition, knives can also frequently inflict larger and more horriffic wounds than bullets. They're also silent, more difficult to disarm (which bit do you grab?) compared with a gun, not reliant on pointing 100% in the correct direction to inflict a wound (most gunfight bullets miss), and you can use it as many times as you like without needing to reload...
Still probably not as deadly as the doctors, though ;)
The shooting actually occurred at Deer Creek Middle School.
I know this school, because my daughter was a student there in 1996-1998, before attending Columbine High School during the shooting incident in April 1999.
Colorado was indeed a right-to-carry State when I left in 2006. I attended a political rally for a Libertarian candidate where he wore a .357 revolver on his hip. However, he still got arrested in the city of Denver, which claimed Home-rule privilege under the Colorado constitution.
The Columbine perps bought their guns at private gun shows. Since then, Colorado requires an instant background check before gun show sales, and straw buying is a crime. I currently work in Virginia, which still does not require background checks for gun show sales, even after the recent massacre at Virginia Tech college.
The Supreme Court recently overturned the District of Columbia ban on possession of private firearms, even in a person's home. Since the law was overturned, the homicide rate dropped dramatically in D.C. Apparently the people who ignored the homicide ban, also ignored the gun ban (surprise). But now it spoils their aim when honest people shoot back.
Much of the drivel the NRA dispenses relies heavily on the idea that if only one had a gun in their house or on their person, they would be safe from all forms of criminal lowlife since they could simply shoot the bastard and get on with whatever. A couple of weeks ago, a group of three lowlifes in my town staged a "home invasion" where the family of three (Mom, Pop and Teenager) were watching TV. Once inside, they held the family hostage while they stole the father's collection of FIFTY firearms and assorted ammo.Fortunately one of the blagger's girlfriends traded info on the raid for ignoring some legal problems of her own and the firearms were recovered and the gang arrested. BTW they were armed with a broomstick which they kept well hidden and claimed was a sawed-off shotgun.
I guess 50 guns weren't enough.
I hate to say this but it *could* be argued that the Michigan Militia and indeed various heavily armed street gangs were acting more in the *spirit* of this than any house holder emptying a clip of armor piercing ammo into his neighbors dog when it took a dump on their lawn one morning (and I''m pretty sure that has happened at *least* once in the US of A).
Less home defense, more homey defense.
In this particular case it looks like the suspect (he's still a suspect unless he's convicted) is suffering some kind of mental illness. The logical thing is to remand for evaluation, not let him out.
Had this been picked up sooner perhaps it never would have gotten here.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021