Friday, August 7, 2009

Shooter from Pennsylvannia uses same dealer as V. Tech Shooter

Huff Post: The gunman who killed three women and wounded nine others at a Pittsburgh-area health club bought accessories for a handgun from the same Wisconsin-based dealer that sold a gun to the Virginia Tech shooter.

Can we just go ahead and say this company needs to start maybe getting investigated for their selling practices? Or perhaps can we make a rule you can’t order shit that can murder people over the internet? Or let’s just start getting serious about gun control instead of people hooping and hollering about our bill of rights? I have said this many many times, the Founding Whigheads didn’t have weapons of annihilation in mind when drafting the Bill of Rights!

Here is how what I received in a Twitter:

Update: I was told to take down this quote or else.....but to paraphrase it, we need more guns in our local gyms and that will solve pyschos access to guns and violence and and and pffftttttt, spandex and needs to comes with teh guns.

That is the type of thought process we are dealing with, holster in your spandex, pistols and pilates, pew pew and protein shakes. People with guns kill people with guns, and it doesn’t stop the act of violence or premeditated acts or psychos. But the argument I receive in this suggested by Jesus Is Comin’ more violence is the answer.

There is something seriously wrong when case after case comes up, but many in Congress think it is pretty swell idea to bring guns across state lines and into National parks.

We need to discuss this, but I am afraid if people get into fist fights over health care well…you can only imagine. There is a serious discussion to be had, no need to take away the Second Amendment, but it is obvious with all the “random” acts that blaze our headlines, inaction is much worse than being fearful of the NRA or whatever other gubbament takeover protesters say.

Gun reform is honestly the only answer, uh-oh that word again is popping in my head "change."

I am Frank Chow and I approved this message


my7kids said...

The man in PA intended to kill himself anyway. If ONE of those women had had a weapon at the ready and the knowhow to use it, they would have taken only ONE body out of that gym (his) or perhaps two (whomever his first shot hit, if it hit anything).

You watch too many Westerns. A person doesn't have to carry a cannon nor have it strapped to their leg. However statistics prove (whether you like it or not), that criminals are less likely to attack someone who is armed. Complete Harvard Law study:

And yes, it is possible to shoot someone shooting at you in the dark. Apparently that man was a terrible shot, having to use 3 weapons to take out 3 helpless women. All one reciprocating has to do is aim at the muzzle flash.

It is a shame that our days are dangerous, but they are. Being prepared for a dangerous situation is not only legal, but smart.

By the way, not only did you spell my ID wrong, but you did not have permission to quote me. Remove it immediately or face a lawsuit... which I am sure is your preferred way to "fight" bad guys anyway.

Nikki Ross

Asian-American Pundit said...

I took down the quote, you totally Pew Pew'd my post. Oh didn't. I don't mind you have a differing opinion or even a complete "Harvard study", but by your argument we all should just have guns to take down all the evils of the world. Problem solved.

It may be smart in your eyes to have more guns, but the root of the problem is much bigger. All the way back to Columbine, Va. Tech and now Penn not to mention countless others these men had access to guns way too easily, that needs to change.

Our nation is supposed to be civil, and you sound more like a Western movie watcher talking about shooting in the dark or strapping holsters to spandex.

And by the way you can't sue someone who doesn't exist. I am a ninja I use swords, guns are for wusses.