Elementary School Shooting, Newtown CT - 26 innocent dead, 20 children

[ekw808]

I don't think guns are the problem, people are. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[precarious]

as you stated, a psych evaluation should be mandatory. a simple "oh, you aren't a felon just pay the fee" isnt enough IMO.

FTR, I'm not a pro-gun NRA nut. But I'm not against them either. If a person wants to cause damage, they'll find a way.

The problem with this statement is the supposition that a "psych evaluation" necessarily exists in a wholly valid and practical implementation.  Any realistic approach to this would inevitably result in as many false positives as the current system allows for ostensibly "unfit" firearms owners.

The "if a person wants to cause damage, they'll find a way" bit is especially supportive of the sentiment that there should be no "psych evaluation," since ultimately any individual who is organized enough will pass any tests which any common dullard would be able to similarly satisfy.

In short, life sucks and is gay and is only for ***s 'cause we all just ham hocks waitin' to get popped on the block.

[demik]

true.

but it's just one more step somebody would have to go through. but as i stated, if a person wants to cause harm there are many other ways that don't involve a gun.

one way we could slow down these shootings is by not giving them the attention they currently get. the news, be it left/right or middle does absolutely no good airing the same thing over and over again. they give the shooters a celebrity status. and for what? most of the time, not for a damn thing.

[keyboardlover]

If a person wants to cause damage, they'll find a way.

I like Ice-T's point on this.

[demik]

If a person wants to cause damage, they'll find a way.

I like Ice-T's point on this.

yeah, i can tell. you used the same tyranny line.

In short, life sucks and is gay and is only for ***s 'cause we all just ham hocks waitin' to get popped on the block.

am i missing something here?

edit* so i googled that line and the first hit was "all black people should be killed" now what the **** are you talking about?

[keyboardlover]

Well the "tyranny line" is not just a line though - it's true. Americans should disarm only when the government disarms.

[tjcaustin]

complete removal of firearms would've made a huge difference

not true.

better gun control would help. but removable wouldn't.

Why not? IMO it's more difficult to kill the innocent with a pocket knife than with a gun.

because you can still acquire guns illegally? you also have the pro-gun side saying (and they have a point) "well, if we could CCW (carry a concealed weapon), somebody would have stopped it."

as you stated, a psych evaluation should be mandatory. a simple "oh, you aren't a felon just pay the fee" isnt enough IMO.

FTR, I'm not a pro-gun NRA nut. But I'm not against them either. If a person wants to cause damage, they'll find a way.

You've nailed it on the head, demik, because if I'm remembering right, the gun used was owned by his mother legally.  What that means is that even though the weapons went through the proper channels and was owned by a upstanding person, this still happened.

I am with people who don't like guns, even though I own them. In fact, I wish there wasn't a single possible method for any human to hurt or kill another human being which existed. But unfortunately, this is not the case.

Sadly, there is not nor will there ever be a single gun control law which actually hinders criminals. In fact, nearly every gun control we already have enables them. Every school is a gun-free zone, which means teachers with guns in their cars have to park far away and no good citizens who work there can concealed-carry. Concealed-carry laws make it so honest citizens cannot carry guns in places where criminals can. Strict measures on purchasing guns make it FAR easier for Joe Criminal to just go to his buddy down the street to buy his weapon.

Deadly weapons are an unfortunate reality of life. Just ask the U.S. government - they kill children in the middle east all the time. But you never hear Americans freaking out over them. The point of the second amendment is that the ability of citizens to arm themselves is literally their last defense against tyranny. So if you want good citizens to disarm, I say fine, but we must start with the government first. Let's disarm our national "defense" which is murdering people in foreign countries and making us less safe. And let's disarm our police too...not all cops are good and there are arguably a lot more sheepdogs in society, who aren't cops, who would do whatever it took to save someone's life if they didn't have to be concerned about being sued or going to jail.

The only difference between government and criminals is that when the government commits crime, we legitimize it.

I have issues with parts of this.  I can't put my finger on why I have these issues, but it's like a primal ...thing in the back of my mind.  I don't agree with America, as a nation, being the world police that it's come to today and I'm not saying that children aren't caught in the tragedy or that those lives are somehow less than US children's, but just something about how you say "kill children in the middle east all the time" like  the aim of the military involvement in the middle east is to kill children, rubs me the wrong way, much like the picture posted in another thread.

One point, as well, about the good Samaritan thing:  that is just an escalating scenario where it starts with two dudes fist fighting and the stronger/more experienced fighter wins, which leads to one trying to cheat with an improvised weapon (as all weapons started as) which leads to more and more until we're right back where we started. 

Well the "tyranny line" is not just a line though - it's true. Americans should disarms only when the government disarms.

Agreed.

[demik]

I have issues with parts of this.  I can't put my finger on why I have these issues, but it's like a primal ...thing in the back of my mind.  I don't agree with America, as a nation, being the world police that it's come to today and I'm not saying that children aren't caught in the tragedy or that those lives are somehow less than US children's, but just something about how you say "kill children in the middle east all the time" like  the aim of the military involvement in the middle east is to kill children, rubs me the wrong way, much like the picture posted in another thread.

eh, you'll be wasting your time arguing with him.

all government is evil blah blah blah.

i honestly don't see why that government rant was even in this thread but meh.

also, another example of scum bag media.

fox news pushing their religion propaganda in light of this event.

"if we were closer to jesus this wouldn't have happened" "if we allowed church in school we'd be better"

shut the **** up fox, this isn't the time or place for your bull****.

[keyboardlover]

I have issues with parts of this.  I can't put my finger on why I have these issues, but it's like a primal ...thing in the back of my mind.  I don't agree with America, as a nation, being the world police that it's come to today and I'm not saying that children aren't caught in the tragedy or that those lives are somehow less than US children's, but just something about how you say "kill children in the middle east all the time" like  the aim of the military involvement in the middle east is to kill children, rubs me the wrong way, much like the picture posted in another thread.

Dude, you need to look up about the drone bombings - it is like playing a video game with real people. They are murdering entire families over there. If you think they are trying to kill terrorists, I understand your position - but WHO is the terrorist? To me the terrorist can easily be seen as the guy who with most guns who is doing the most killing.

That's us, dude.

i honestly don't see why that government rant was even in this thread but meh.

It wasn't a rant - it was a valid point about the second amendment, and tjcaustin agreed with me about it!

[demik]

The only difference between government and criminals is that when the government commits crime, we legitimize it.

definitely not a rant.

definitely.

[keyboardlover]

Can you effectively refute my logic Mr. Demik?

[demik]

this is not the time or place to shoot out your anti gov libertarian views.

that is what im getting at.

you want to continue your obama bashing/government hating agenda, there is the obama thread or make your own thread.

we are talking about what happened today and what we think could have been done to prevent it. and you want to bring up ****ing drones.

[keyboardlover]

It's a debate about gun control so it makes sense to talk about the entire point of the second amendment, which the sentence of mine you quoted directly addresses. The point of the second amendment is to protect us from crimes of the government, which are legitimized because it is government. That is a fact that has nothing to do with my political views.

[demik]

and you want to bring up ****ing drones.

because THAT has to do with the shooting today.

[keyboardlover]

Well yea of course right? Because it speaks to my point about  the second amendment and crimes of the government.

[demik]

now im starting to understand what malphas keeps saying.

oh well, i almost forgot why i have you blocked.

[DanGWanG]

C'mon bros....politics aside, kids died today.

[keyboardlover]

C'mon bros....politics aside, kids died today.

But see it is political though...it always is. It ANGERS me to see Obama go on tv and weep fake tears over American children killed when he simply goes back to killing innocent Arab children with drones. That ain't right dude. That ain't right at all. What's the difference between murder and foreign policy? This all goes back to my point about the second amendment. Everything is "ok" when the government does it.

now im starting to understand what malphas keeps saying.

If you're understanding malphas, I think we need to get back to discussing the importance of proper mental health identification and treatment.

[MMB]

*rolls eyes.....*

[laffindude]

It is time for healing. I really hate to see politics, what-ifs, and especially disagreements amongst ourselves. There will be plenty of time for that later. We're angry, we're hurting, and we want answers. Lets just focus on good thoughts for now, especially for those that will carry the scars from this incident for the rest of their lives.

[akuJIWA]

My god.. This is just sick.. My condolences goes out to all of the families affected by this. The world is just so ****ed up nowadays.

[demik]

My god.. This is just sick.. My condolences goes out to all of the families affected by this. The world is just so ****ed up nowadays.

hate to break it to you but, the world has always been ****ed up.

we just have more media coverage to bring it to your ears and eyes.

[TheQsanity]

Rip to the people that have died today in the shooting. Prayers go out to the family this holiday season.

[MissMurd3r84]

And in other news, in China today a mentally ill man went on a knife spree stabbing kids in a school o.0

[akuJIWA]

My god.. This is just sick.. My condolences goes out to all of the families affected by this. The world is just so ****ed up nowadays.

hate to break it to you but, the world has always been ****ed up.

we just have more media coverage to bring it to your ears and eyes.

[tjcaustin]

I have issues with parts of this.  I can't put my finger on why I have these issues, but it's like a primal ...thing in the back of my mind.  I don't agree with America, as a nation, being the world police that it's come to today and I'm not saying that children aren't caught in the tragedy or that those lives are somehow less than US children's, but just something about how you say "kill children in the middle east all the time" like  the aim of the military involvement in the middle east is to kill children, rubs me the wrong way, much like the picture posted in another thread.

eh, you'll be wasting your time arguing with him.

snip

I'm not even sure I'm arguing with him.  I think my libertarian leanings are a bit less severe, but I think that the current US government model is horribly broken.  But I also know that the government I want wouldn't work in today's world as there's a reason it failed nearly 100 years ago now with the Great Depression.  I still hope that our military strategy can go back to pre-world war status of "Don't mess with the US directly and we aren't in your business" but I know that's a pipe dream as well.

And I think that's what it is.  He says the things I want but feel or know aren't possible with such conviction that it bothers me.

I have issues with parts of this.  I can't put my finger on why I have these issues, but it's like a primal ...thing in the back of my mind.  I don't agree with America, as a nation, being the world police that it's come to today and I'm not saying that children aren't caught in the tragedy or that those lives are somehow less than US children's, but just something about how you say "kill children in the middle east all the time" like  the aim of the military involvement in the middle east is to kill children, rubs me the wrong way, much like the picture posted in another thread.

Dude, you need to look up about the drone bombings - it is like playing a video game with real people. They are murdering entire families over there. If you think they are trying to kill terrorists, I understand your position - but WHO is the terrorist? To me the terrorist can easily be seen as the guy who with most guns who is doing the most killing.

That's us, dude.

See and I want to disagree about the terrorist thing, but I can't.  The military machine has, since essentially the fall of Berlin and the Axis, continued to manufacture some generic and amorphous fear to strengthen support at home for what are essentially violations of the Bill of Rights. In a perfect world, the old Teddy Roosevelt ideology would be the maximum of military presence for my comfort.

It wasn't a rant - it was a valid point about the second amendment, and tjcaustin agreed with me about it!

This is true, I agree with a lot of the broad strokes of what you say.  It's just there are things about what you say that make me uncomfortable.  I don't want, and for the most part refuse to, believe that the current US government has become the evil that it claims to prevent.

C'mon bros....politics aside, kids died today.

But see it is political though...it always is. It ANGERS me to see Obama go on tv and weep fake tears over American children killed when he simply goes back to killing innocent Arab children with drones. That ain't right dude. That ain't right at all. What's the difference between murder and foreign policy? This all goes back to my point about the second amendment. Everything is "ok" when the government does it.

This is an ideology problem between the two of us, I think.  I believe that Obama does care about what's happened here at home just as strongly as I believe that children aren't the target of these drone assaults even though drone attacks shouldn't have the collateral damage they have.  On the other hand, the enemy that instigated this decade plus involvement isn't a traditional enemy either and has proven cunning enough that the deaths of these children could be used to try and stir unrest and upheaval here at home to shatter us from within.  This does not negate the fact that the children and even some adults that have died aren't innocent, but further reinforces that war is *not* good or just.

From here, I'm not comfortable using this as a platform for anything. 

[demik]

My god.. This is just sick.. My condolences goes out to all of the families affected by this. The world is just so ****ed up nowadays.

hate to break it to you but, the world has always been ****ed up.

we just have more media coverage to bring it to your ears and eyes.

[TheQsanity]

My god.. This is just sick.. My condolences goes out to all of the families affected by this. The world is just so ****ed up nowadays.

hate to break it to you but, the world has always been ****ed up.

we just have more media coverage to bring it to your ears and eyes.

Your signature says t all.
Put your differences aside. Most people don't understand, see and a lot of the times would disagree, but truth is we are all living animals with a conscience. If we just realize that we are organisms made of tissues and cells, most people "know" that but don't understand what they know. Take out your bias and take out your attachment. We are noting more than material, think I am wrong? Press your hands against your stomach, can you visualize anything under the skin? Try your head, jaw, hand... There is something under your skin and it is not an "everlasting soul". Who is going to remember you when you die one hundred years from now. One hundred years ago we had almost two billion, now we have a little more than seven billion. Chances are that we won't make an impact on the people of the future but if we treat the people we meet today with respect and love each other for just the fact we all have to live in this world and suffer the same pains.

Stop hating the things you do not have or the people that have what you want or the people you think is keeping what you want from you. Love what you have and love the the next person, no one asked to be in this world.

The "world" is all your perception, but if you make someone else's perception your's, your perception becomes the "world's".

[clickclack]

My heart and thoughts go out to the families and the community. I hope the consoling and grieving contribute to futhering a robust appreciation for the values we hold dear and why we must care for others as if they serve a more integral part in our daily lives.


Regarding other matters in this thread, I noted some strong-ish viewpoints, and the rational behind which I found to be rather interesting. Some of these are thoughts and some are summations or both.

1) The thought of having more gun availability to prevent the usage of more available guns or other weapons/violence, is interesting if not a bit confusing.

2) The tragic story of the 22 people injured in China with a knife makes me think "thank goodness they didn't have a gun". They all survived I believe.

3) The "if it wasn't a gun it would have been something else" theory is also interesting. The "something else" seems like it would be preferable. Wether it be a knife (apparently not as effective as a gun), a bomb (requires perhaps a bit more effort and it's a bit more definitive if you're wearing it), automobile (not very portable, kinda ironic), poison (still a bit of effort and a bit more risky), hitman (requires significant money usually, and you need to be hot for sexual favors to work in lieu of money). Convenience still seems to be a relevant consideration in even the most absurd circumstances/individuals.

4) Would people feel more comfortable knowing there are concealed guns in school (apart from officers)? Would faculty/Admin even want to carry them? That's a lot of responsibility one way or the other. You don't really passively pull a gun on someone, that takes either "crazy" or "trained dedication"(usually). I would also think that you would likely be a target immediately upon brandishing it. Perhaps you might strike more panic in a crazy person who is holding a gun. But then again, "do you feel lucky punk?".

5) Terrorism, war, revenge, and crazy all sure look alike if you're on the recieving end. Yet they all are distinguishable, and readily so most of the time.

6) Does a gun in some way protect you from the government, does it really give you an option now? you vs. police/military.

...If you're understanding malphas, I think we need to get back to discussing the importance of proper mental health identification and treatment.

Absolutely! This will likely take much government involvement to implement as well as continued tax apportionment.

[demik]

2) The tragic story of the 22 people injured in China with a knife makes me think "thank goodness they didn't have a gun". They all survived I believe.

to play the devil's advocate.. a bystander could have prevented that incident if they CCW.

again, im for stricter gun control but.. sometimes i CAN see why they'd be necessary.

once again, it's the people not the weapon..

[clickclack]

But... but... then someone might've been killed! ;)

I hear the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing often. But I kinda feel it's honestly a bit moot, since that pertains to just about everything in life. And since we know all things are not equal. You wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight would you? They do indeed apprently seem necessary at times, officers after all do carry them.

It's true that guns can't stand up, load themselves, hop-hop-hop, and then shoot you. Errr... well I don't think they can. But some things just seem to be much better at devestation than others when in the hands of a child/adult.


I also just noticed that it went from 18 to 20 children. So very, very sad. I just heard an interview from a doctor local to the area. His perspective was chilling. He said that they heard about the incident and quickly prepared for at least a couple dozen patients. But was mortified when only 3 persons arrived. Sadly only one of them was able to make it. These poor people, no one deserves this.

The news media could be a bit kinder though. Stop overly sensationalizing this tradgedy, and stop with the "you heard it hear first" crap. How disrespectful.

[Batmann]

Your signature says t all.
Put your differences aside. Most people don't understand, see and a lot of the times would disagree, but truth is we are all living animals with a conscience. If we just realize that we are organisms made of tissues and cells, most people "know" that but don't understand what they know. Take out your bias and take out your attachment. We are noting more than material, think I am wrong? Press your hands against your stomach, can you visualize anything under the skin? Try your head, jaw, hand... There is something under your skin and it is not an "everlasting soul". Who is going to remember you when you die one hundred years from now. One hundred years ago we had almost two billion, now we have a little more than seven billion. Chances are that we won't make an impact on the people of the future but if we treat the people we meet today with respect and love each other for just the fact we all have to live in this world and suffer the same pains.

Stop hating the things you do not have or the people that have what you want or the people you think is keeping what you want from you. Love what you have and love the the next person, no one asked to be in this world.

The "world" is all your perception, but if you make someone else's perception your's, your perception becomes the "world's".

100% true but for some reasons hard to bear in mind,
it's not easy to accept that in the end we are only flesh and bones

[Lanx]

ugh you guys are turning a tragedy into political bs, there's nothing political here, crazy guy wanted to crazy kill ppl/kids. he was going to kill no matter what implement of death he decided to obtain, either by gun, bomb, knife or whatever has been used to kill in the entirety of the human race. ppl who say conceled carry would have prevented this are stupid too, your just gonna end up trading bullets and killing even more ppl.

[keyboardlover]

So you're saying that a responsible person at that school who was carrying a concealed weapon could NOT have not only saved lives but even possibly defused the entire situation?

Now THAT sounds stupid to me.

You wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight would you? They do indeed apprently seem necessary at times, officers after all do carry them.

Well that's just it right? If you take the guns away from the good people then only the government and criminals (shades of gray) are the ones who have them. If you wouldn't want to be the only guy in a room filled with bureaucrats and criminals without a gun, then that scenario should not sound good to you either. One could argue that gun control caused this situation to happen, since school campuses are ALL gun-free zones and no one is allowed to legally CCW on them. The entire situation could have been defused if a responsible person there had a gun. That is absolutely true.

And I can tell you that anywhere I am, if a shooting did happen, I'd be hoping to god that someone there wasn't fooled by gun restrictions and the demonization of guns, had a CCW permit, didn't leave the damn thing at home, had it with them and would be ready to save people's lives if and when an incident occurred. I would also hope they wouldn't be so afraid of lawsuits or going to prison in order to save another person's damn life.

[quadibloc]

Seriously, shut up about the politics behind this.  That's the last thing we should be discussing right now.

While there's something to be said for that, naturally the time after a tragedy like this is going to be the time when people's attention will be focused on preventing another tragedy like this.

I think it is true that concealed carry by more responsible citizens would reduce many kinds of crime. But it's also true that some reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of madmen would help matters - of course drug pushers manage to get guns in spite of gun control, but lone crazies don't have a worldwide smuggling network behind them.

In Canada, the police support our strict gun controls... because they have reduced the number of officers killed handling domestic violence complaints. They have not much reduced the level of the kinds of crimes feared by the ordinary citizen... which was very low in Canada without gun control, and which was lower yet in 1962, back when we were still executing convicted murderers.

A few sensible measures can be taken to reduce gun violence if it's done with the realization that the Second Amendment does help to protect liberty, and should not be vitiated. Americans already know the kind of society they want to live in; they need to have a plan to achieve that kind of society, and the determination to carry it out. (Unfortunately, though, the Pacific Ocean probably won't lend itself to the sort of treatment the Dutch gave the adjacent portions of the North Sea...)

it's not easy to accept that in the end we are only flesh and bones

Well, there you are. Someone once said that the answer is not to make life softer, but to make people tougher. Guns woudn't be a problem if it took more potent weapons, the possession of which still is effectively controled (say, like thermonuclear warheads) to injure human beings.

This wouldn't involve restricting liberty, but adding to it.

[keyboardlover]

quadibloc, I always liked you

Haven't seen you in a while!

[longweight]

More guns is definitely the solution to this.

[Lanx]

conceled carry is for your own personal protection, not a license to roam around and be a vigilante, i'm sure if you have a conceled carry, then you are trained in some manner to use that weapon for protection, of yourself, i doubt anyone is prepared to use it as assault, since the scenerio is some teach outside of there would have a conceled carry and then upon hearing the gunshots go all dirty harry. conceled carry is for your own protection, not "as well as protecting the public trust" that's the police job. more guns wouldn't have theoretically helped this bad situation.

[microsoft windows]

At least one good thing is the shooter killed himself so we and the victims' families don't have to spend 10 years watching this case being drug through the court system.

[keyboardlover]

conceled carry is for your own protection, not "as well as protecting the public trust" that's the police job. more guns wouldn't have theoretically helped this bad situation.

Yea but if it worked, then it would work. Which is WHY we need sheepdogs out there, who CCW and are ready to rock and roll if and when, god forbid, their intervention is needed to save lives.

[Batmann]

it's not easy to accept that in the end we are only flesh and bones

Well, there you are. Someone once said that the answer is not to make life softer, but to make people tougher. Guns woudn't be a problem if it took more potent weapons, the possession of which still is effectively controled (say, like thermonuclear warheads) to injure human beings.

This wouldn't involve restricting liberty, but adding to it.

Not sure I fully understand why this led back to weapons
To me it's just a fact

[longweight]

conceled carry is for your own protection, not "as well as protecting the public trust" that's the police job. more guns wouldn't have theoretically helped this bad situation.

Yea but if it worked, then it would work. Which is WHY we need sheepdogs out there, who CCW and are ready to rock and roll if and when, god forbid, their intervention is needed to save lives.

What happens when no one has a gun?

[keyboardlover]

What happens when no one has a gun?

That is the situation which I prefer as well, although unfortunately it will never happen. Guns and other instruments of death will always exist - they are mechanical devices created by human beings. I wish that wasn't the case but it is.

[MMB]

KL - please update your website.

[keyboardlover]

KL - please update your website.

That's kind of OT for this thread - please shoot me a PM with what exactly you would like updated.

Sorry I've slacked but I've also been super busy...

[longweight]

What happens when no one has a gun?

That is the situation which I prefer as well, although unfortunately it will never happen. Guns and other instruments of death will always exist - they are mechanical devices created by human beings. I wish that wasn't the case but it is.

So instead of working towards a society where guns are not readily available you want more people to carry guns? America needs tovadmit that it has a gun problem, then it can start to deal with it.

[keyboardlover]

So instead of working towards a society where guns are not readily available you want more people to carry guns? America needs tovadmit that it has a gun problem, then it can start to deal with it.

Not readily available to whom though? Gun control makes guns less available to the people who want to own guns responsibly - not the criminals who can much more easily buy them illegally, and carry them wherever they want. If gun control worked, then it would work. Let's not forget that the incident occurred in a "gun-free zone".

[precarious]

crazy guy wanted to crazy kill ppl/kids. he was going to kill no matter what implement of death he decided to obtain, either by gun, bomb, knife or whatever has been used to kill in the entirety of the human race. ppl who say conceled carry would have prevented this are stupid too, your just gonna end up trading bullets and killing even more ppl.

clickclack mentioned the convenience aspect of handguns earlier, and it's a valid point:  firearms more or less exhibit the maximum ratio of possible damage relative to ease of acquisition and use.  if this person hadn't had easy access to the gun (reportedly in the form of one owned by his mother), then this likely would not have played out the same way.  this individual was clearly impulsive, disorganized, and didn't have a clear idea what they were lashing out against, because seriously, who shoots up an elementary school?  that is not making a significant statement in any sense.  this was some misguided crime of passion, and a gun made it easy to commit.  it's plausible that if there had not been a gun in the home, this never would have happened.  but we don't know all the facts yet, so this is only one hypothesis.

however, i don't agree that we should outlaw firearms, either.  there are many things in life which are far worse than death.

to suggest that someone carrying a concealed weapon could not have prevented this is foolish.  i can't think of any particular reason for a young adult to shoot at children in an elementary school, so if i saw this happening and possessed the means at the time, i would have put an end to that.

firearms aren't really big and scary thermonuclear devices waiting to go off and summarily annihilate everyone within a fifty mile radius:  they're tools, which with training and when appropriately wielded can prevent at least as much harm as any may claim that they cause.

[uJalled]

I think a good first step is making the requirements to buy a gun and ammo very stringent- with a poly and psych test. then they should crack down on the illegal arms market, because that's where a lot of these lunatics get their supplies.

[Malphas]

Why does this sort of thing seem to happen every other week in the US?