PDA

View Full Version : People shot, taken hostage in N.Y. - 13 dead


Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 9:43 AM
CRAP! Not another one......more fuel for the anti's. Just think....if just one person in that build had been CCW they mighta been able to stop the guy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/?GT1=43001

Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 9:44 AM
BREAKING NEWS
NBC News and news services
updated 10 minutes ago
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. - A gunman entered an immigration services center in downtown Binghamton on Friday, shot several people and took dozens of hostages, according to media reports.

NBC's Pete Williams cited city and state officials as saying that as many 13 people might have been killed. But Williams cautioned that the information was very preliminary and may change as the hours go by because police were still searching the building.

At least 41 people were in the American Civic Association building at the time of the shooting, The Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin reported.

Four people were removed from the building on stretchers and taken to hospitals, and 10 more ambulances were called, the newspaper reported. The condition of those shot was not immediately clear.

A man went into the group's building and started shooting, according to police scanner traffic reported by WBNG-TV.

The gunman had a high-powered rifle, Mayor Matthew Ryan told the newspaper.

Some later left building
When the shooting started, people escaped to the basement in search of safety. More than a dozen people were hiding in a closet for more than an hour.

Some people were later escorted out of the building, WBGH reporter Sophia Ojeda said.

The American Civic Association's Web site says it helps immigrants and refugees with counseling, resettlement, citizenship, family reunification, interpreters and translators.

The suspect was described as a man in his 20s between 5 feet, 8 inches, and 6 feet tall, wearing a bright green nylon jacket and dark-rimmed glasses.

School locked down
Police locked down a nearby high school and advised local business owners to stay inside.

Rich Griffith, who works across the street from the hostage scene, said he saw three people carried out of the building on stretchers alive.

Linda Miller, a spokeswoman at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Binghamton, confirmed that a student from Binghamton University was being treated at the emergency room. Miller said she didn't know the nature of the injuries.

"We're on full alert anticipating we're going to get additional casualties," Miller said.

Binghamton, with a population around 45,000, is about 150 miles northwest of New York City.

Alan Block
04-03-2009, 9:51 AM
level of tension in society elevates we will see more of this kind of thing. A lot more. We are bombarded in ever increasing waves of gloom and doom news stories. This only serves to make people desperate and some who are close the edge will go over.

yellowfin
04-03-2009, 9:53 AM
But NYC has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
NYC =/= New York state. Their laws are totally worse, population is totally different, and it almost isn't located in the state of New York at all. It might as well be New Jersey instead for lots of reasons not the least of which being geography. People joke, in good spirit or more often not, that CA should be broken off in an earthquake and sank into the ocean as it has nothing to do with the US--NYC is a much better application of such. A good portion of the majority of NY wants nothing to do with NYC anymore, much like but probably worse than LA, Berkeley, and SF here.

grahlaika
04-03-2009, 9:56 AM
My heart and prayers go out to the victims. I'm hoping it's not some anti-immigrant jerk doing this, but I'm guessing it is.

It's morons like this guy who will eventually lead us to lose ALL our rights to bear arms. To be honest, we need to do more as a gun-rights community to police ourselves and to find ways to keep unstable idiots from having access to weapons. The rest of society does have a right to expect us to be responsible gun owners, and incidents like this leads them to believe none of us can be trusted. I just hope the NRA won't go in like after Columbine and stage another 'in-your-face' gun rights protest. They should instead work closely with authorities to figure out what they can do to prevent this stuff from happening.

Sorry, but that's just my opinion. I'm upset that we keep losing our rights, but I also understand why it's happening.

mvpatriot
04-03-2009, 9:56 AM
well said Alan, I completely agree, thats why I'm network news fasting

Vtec44
04-03-2009, 10:08 AM
It's a sad situation and I hope it will be resolved peacefully :(

With that said, NRA should use this opportunity and promote self-defense ownership for situations like this. For many years, polititians have used these tragic events to build up their resume with no real solutions to solve the problem.

yellowfin
04-03-2009, 10:21 AM
My heart and prayers go out to the victims. I'm hoping it's not some anti-immigrant jerk doing this, but I'm guessing it is.

It's morons like this guy who will eventually lead us to lose ALL our rights to bear arms. To be honest, we need to do more as a gun-rights community to police ourselves and to find ways to keep unstable idiots from having access to weapons. The rest of society does have a right to expect us to be responsible gun owners, and incidents like this leads them to believe none of us can be trusted. I just hope the NRA won't go in like after Columbine and stage another 'in-your-face' gun rights protest. They should instead work closely with authorities to figure out what they can do to prevent this stuff from happening.

Sorry, but that's just my opinion. I'm upset that we keep losing our rights, but I also understand why it's happening.

Wow, so many points to address in this...I guess I'll keep it simple.

First of all, and most objectionable, is the reinforcement of the Brady position of equating criminals and lunatics with law abiding gun owners. Wow, so by that logic I should be one of the Pan Am bombers because I'm 1/4 Irish and happened to be alive in 1983? Notice how that's the only aspect that gets focus, that the antis in the press and the anti gun orgs use to split us off from everyone else--do you own a gun, yes or no, if no, then you are in the safe group and those other people are in the violent group. The sheeple can easily fall for this. "Why no, I don't have a gun on me...so if someone else does, that makes them bad, right? It feels good knowing I'm not a bad guy. Those bad gunmen, they're evil!" They use the term "gunman" because that's their little binary filtering characteristic. It's effective propaganda because it's simple and to the point.

Secondly, are you saying we as gun owners should become the police? WE should investigate everyone who comes into a gun shop? Because we're gun owners we know everyone who owns a gun within 100 miles, or even 10? That's like taking your Korean friend to China and upon needing directions saying "You're Asian, talk to them!"

Thirdly, we should stop what we're doing and be on the defensive, and accept the demands of the sick and evil politics that take advantage of the actions of the sick and evil criminals? Our answer to confirmation of need to have effective protection against scenarios like this is to voluntarily give it up? That's like saying you hate tuberculosis so much and are so scared you'll purposefully avoid vaccination for it. If you're arguing that the abuse of rights will lead to others demanding us to give them up, that's also equally off base. Our 2A rights have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what a thug or psycho does. That's like comparing a diamond and a potato because they both come out of the ground. Me lawfully owning, carrying, and using a firearm for lawful purposes in no way resembles what the killer in the story did. The association with firearms is ridiculously oversimplistic at best.


It's bad enough that our opposition even attempts this bunk thinking. That they get away with it to any degree is disgusting--that any of us should echo it is downright disturbing.

Spaceghost
04-03-2009, 10:21 AM
First, I would like to extend my sympathies to the loved ones of those murdered by a coward.

Second, does anyone else think that the crazies all seem to do this stuff at the same time? It seems like event after another, not good for the RKBA cause.

Third, we really need to get some more solid court decisions to swing our way. I fear Heller isn't enough to keep the gun grabbers at bay.

grahlaika
04-03-2009, 10:43 AM
First of all, and most objectionable, is the reinforcement of the Brady position of equating criminals and lunatics with law abiding gun owners. Wow, so by that logic I should be one of the Pan Am bombers because I'm 1/4 Irish and happened to be alive in 1983? Notice how that's the only aspect that gets focus, that the antis in the press and the anti gun orgs use to split us off from everyone else--do you own a gun, yes or no, if no, then you are in the safe group and those other people are in the violent group. The sheeple can easily fall for this. "Why no, I don't have a gun on me...so if someone else does, that makes them bad, right? It feels good knowing I'm not a bad guy. Those bad gunmen, they're evil!" They use the term "gunman" because that's their little binary filtering characteristic. It's effective propaganda because it's simple and to the point.

Not sure what this means, so I'll leave it alone...

Secondly, are you saying we as gun owners should become the police? WE should investigate everyone who comes into a gun shop? Because we're gun owners we know everyone who owns a gun within 100 miles, or even 10? That's like taking your Korean friend to China and upon needing directions saying "You're Asian, talk to them!"

No, I'm not saying we become the police, merely that we need to police ourselves. Two different things. What that means is that if we know someone who owns guns, who is currently going through some troubled times, or who starts to say weird things like 'I think I'll go out and get those people who wronged me' it's our responsibility to take action.

At a minimum, that means talking to them to try and diffuse their thoughts from running their course. If that doesn't work, then try to convince them to give up their weapons temporarily, whether give them to a friend or relative, or to store them far away so they're not readily accessible. At worst, if nothing works, we should be ready to go to the authorities if the situation is bad enough to prevent something like this tragedy from happening.

That's the responsible thing to do. Being a passive bystander and letting someone you know go out on a shooting spree is morally defunct at the least, and in my opinion partly criminal because you could have done something about it and chose not to.

Thirdly, we should stop what we're doing and be on the defensive, and accept the demands of the sick and evil politics that take advantage of the actions of the sick and evil criminals? Our answer to confirmation of need to have effective protection against scenarios like this is to voluntarily give it up? That's like saying you hate tuberculosis so much and are so scared you'll purposefully avoid vaccination for it. If you're arguing that the abuse of rights will lead to others demanding us to give them up, that's also equally off base. Our 2A rights have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with what a thug or psycho does. That's like comparing a diamond and a potato because they both come out of the ground. Me lawfully owning, carrying, and using a firearm for lawful purposes in no way resembles what the killer in the story did. The association with firearms is ridiculously oversimplistic at best.

I never said anything about accepting falsehoods promoted by the media. My point was that the more we continue to be pig-headed and stubborn about not recognizing there are some serious issues regarding gun rights which do put society at risk, the more we antagonize the non-gun owners into passing laws that take our rights away. In my opinion, the NRA lost a LOT of credibility when Heston went to places like Columbine and acted the way he did instead of being a positive force for change. Because the NRA lost that credibility, they lost their ability to fight for gun rights in California for example - I have to keep my .50 BMG in Texas now because the NRA lost that fight.

Maybe something you don't recognize is that because of all the gun violence that's in the news, and because of the lack of responsible action by gun owners, we've allowed ourselves to be at the mercy of a voting public that's increasingly urban, increasingly liberal, and increasingly anti-gun. We can either choose to take action, or we can choose to keep banging our heads against the tide claiming we have a right to bear arms while that right is being taken away from us. I'd rather take action to prove that we can be responsible as a community, and that we do care about safe gun ownership.

It's bad enough that our opposition even attempts this bunk thinking. That they get away with it to any degree is disgusting--that any of us should echo it is downright disturbing.

I'm not echoing anyone's position, just stating my own. I think it's equally absurd to stick your head in the sand and pretend reality doesn't exist, and thus do nothing about it. It's disturbing to me that you're advocating gun ownership at any cost, regardless of how irresponsible it may be.

I for one want to preserve my right to bear arms. Do you?

tactic101
04-03-2009, 10:45 AM
It's morons like this guy who will eventually lead us to lose ALL our rights to bear arms. To be honest, we need to do more as a gun-rights community to police ourselves and to find ways to keep unstable idiots from having access to weapons. The rest of society does have a right to expect us to be responsible gun owners, and incidents like this leads them to believe none of us can be trusted. I just hope the NRA won't go in like after Columbine and stage another 'in-your-face' gun rights protest. They should instead work closely with authorities to figure out what they can do to prevent this stuff from happening.

Sorry, but that's just my opinion. I'm upset that we keep losing our rights, but I also understand why it's happening.


Listen, I don't feel personally guilty or liable when some murderer decides to deliberately plow down a sidewalk full of people with their car, just because I own a car. Awful, murderous people will always be out there.

Guns in the hands of ordinary people can be used to protect against, or at least limit, this kind of atrocity. If enough of these events get thwarted by CCW holders, the murderers will think twice before deciding to take innocent lives.

The correct response to all of these events is not "Let's find out how this murderer got his gun," it should be "Our government must allow its citizens to defend themselves." The public should be demanding the right to defend themselves and the legislatures should be responding in kind.

grahlaika
04-03-2009, 10:54 AM
The correct response to all of these events is not "Let's find out how this murderer got his gun," it should be "Our government must allow its citizens to defend themselves." The public should be demanding the right to defend themselves and the legislatures should be responding in kind.

I think the correct response should be both those things. People SHOULD have a right to defend themselves, but we should also make sure people who are unstable should not have access to firearms. The public has a right to feel safe knowing people won't go out on shooting sprees with their defensive gun just because they're angry at their boss, or at their significant other, etc.

I realize we can't prevent crimes. But as responsible gun owners we need to re-assure the rest of society that we can remain responsible.

bbguns44
04-03-2009, 11:06 AM
There's nothing wrong with alerting the police if you think a crime is
about to be commited but all citizens have that duty, gun owners or not.
The people closest to the criminal is always in the best position to know
if something is going to happen.

eighteenninetytwo
04-03-2009, 11:07 AM
the above +1.
There should be no way that people who are unstable or criminals should legally have access to firearms - some may say it's the thin end of the wedge but society has to be able to protect most people with a few laws. eg you have to pass test before you can drive.
Yet again though one perosn in the building with CCW could have saved lives and that aspect of the story will NEVER be told in the media.

nobody_special
04-03-2009, 11:15 AM
CNN just reported that vice president Biden is about to make a statement.
:wacko:

tactic101
04-03-2009, 12:11 PM
but we should also make sure people who are unstable should not have access to firearms. The public has a right to feel safe knowing people won't go out on shooting sprees [...] as responsible gun owners we need to re-assure the rest of society that we can remain responsible.

Your unstated premise here is that responsible gun owners somehow allowed this crime to take place, and that simply is not true. (It cannot be true: responsible gun owners are responsible, and therefore act responsibly, otherwise they are not responsible gun owners.)

I would be surprised if anyone on CalGuns supported unstable people accessing firearms. I certainly don't. Problem is, "unstable" usually goes along with unpredictable. How many times have you heard of unstable people being recognized as such before they snapped? Odd, quiet, strange, perhaps, but unstable? Unstable behavior is the kind that usually gets a restraining order. Again, I doubt any CalGun folks or gun dealers can predict who will be unstable.

The bottom line is bad people will always have ways to kill good people. They won't be giving any of us any warning, most likely. Best be prepared to defend ourselves and our families.

I'm all for alerting authorities to potential bad actors among us, but realistically, they're going to cloak their intentions from those who could intervene until they snap.

MrSigmaDOT40
04-03-2009, 12:54 PM
death tole up to 15

grahlaika
04-03-2009, 2:00 PM
Your unstated premise here is that responsible gun owners somehow allowed this crime to take place, and that simply is not true. (It cannot be true: responsible gun owners are responsible, and therefore act responsibly, otherwise they are not responsible gun owners.)

I agree that by definition responsible people would do something if they see someone starting to act in an abnormal manner, but the fact is that more often than not lots of people around those individuals choose to ignore signs of trouble. I'm sure we'll find out that this was the case here as well - somebody knew this guy was acting suspicious and ignored it.

Unfortunately we live in a society where doing the responsible thing often means you get dragged into court, so many of us choose to turn the other cheek because it's convenient. Does that mean most of us are irresponsible? I guess it does, which kinda goes to the argument of people trying to take our rights away.

Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 2:16 PM
I agree that by definition responsible people would do something if they see someone starting to act in an abnormal manner, but the fact is that more often than not lots of people around those individuals choose to ignore signs of trouble. I'm sure we'll find out that this was the case here as well - somebody knew this guy was acting suspicious and ignored it.

Unfortunately we live in a society where doing the responsible thing often means you get dragged into court, so many of us choose to turn the other cheek because it's convenient. Does that mean most of us are irresponsible? I guess it does, which kinda goes to the argument of people trying to take our rights away.

Although yes I do agree that if someone close to another person starts to suspect the person is becoming unstable they should try to do something. The problem with that is often these people are withdrawn or isolate themselves for a period of time before such things so there is no one there to notice the decline. Also you must factor in that the average person does not have any experience in "diagnosing" mental disorders or the signs leading to them. So they might notice a family member acting strangely but unless that person starts to voice "violent intents" they are not likely to think the person is about to become a mass murdered.

Also ask yourself this...."who do you call?" The sad fact is that the way our system is set up until someone does something overt or voices violent intents at least there is not much the authorities can do.....which is EXACTLY why citizens NEED to be able to protect themselves. In such situation perhaps a nutjob gets off a couple of shots and kills 1-2 people at the most before he gets taken down by a responsible citizen who is immediately present to intercede. Deaths are kept to a minimum and no hostage situations.

rkoace
04-03-2009, 2:19 PM
my prayers goes out to the people who died.

Whiskey_Sauer
04-03-2009, 2:26 PM
my prayers goes out to the people who died.

Amen. If they were at the center to seek assistance in becoming U.S. citizens, it breaks my heart.

Untamed1972
04-03-2009, 2:36 PM
It is incidents like these that make me start thinking that LUCC is becoming a more reasonable option for us here in restrictive CA. In a situation like this being able to reach into a bag/backpack/laptop case and pull out your handgun, pop in mag, and drop the slide would prolly end up saving alotta of lives. (assuming you're not the first in the line of fire that is.)

sfpcservice
04-03-2009, 2:41 PM
Seems like a good argument in favor of AB357. If you were LOC, you'd be the first one killed. But if you were CCW, you would probably be able to draw, aim and fire before the bad guy knew his killing spree was over.

tactic101
04-03-2009, 8:41 PM
I'm sure we'll find out that this was the case here as well - somebody knew this guy was acting suspicious and ignored it.

Again, you're sure someone dropped the ball and I doubt it. We'll see in the next couple of days. If I recall the VA Tech killer was weird but hadn't broken any laws before he went on his rampage.

I know from experience that calling the cops because someone is "acting suspicious" is such a low priority that they usually can't respond. The police have better things to do than drive around town looking for people who haven't visibly broken any laws and they have no probable cause to investigate. Usually they only can come out urgently if a violent crime is currently happening or has happened.

You know what they say, hindsight is 20/20. Whatever we find out is not going to point to what he was going to do today, unless he left some suicide note.

I firmly believe we're talking about predicting the unpredictable. Not even the police or psychiatrists can reliably tell you who will and who will not snap. It's impossible and wishing we could know the future irrational acts of individuals is not nearly as useful as preparing to defend one's self.