Good Guy With Gun Tries To Kill Neighbor’s Barking Dog, Shoots Wrong One

[Starboard Tack]

A man described as a “prominent” Washington state banker was so enraged by his neighbor’s dog’s barking that he grabbed his rifle, walked across the street and shot it death in front of the family. Over the terrified screams of the family, a dog could still be heard barking in the distance. He shot the wrong dog.

According to the dog’s owner, Loyce Andrews, their neighbor, 55-year-old David William Latham, didn’t say a single word before walking up to the house with his rifle. The dog went up to Latham because it didn’t recognize the man, and the man shot it once in the chest. Then he turned around and walked back to his house.
The Bellingham Herald reports that Andrew’s husband, Cary Chunyk, confronted Latham shouting, “You just shot my dog!” Latham then turned and allegedly pointed the rifle at Chunyk before going inside his home.
Making this case a bit more tragic (but only just slightly) is the fact that Latham apparently shot the wrong dog. According to Latham’s own confession, he admitted that the dog he shot was probably not the one that had been annoying him for hours with its barking. After he had killed Molly, the offending dog could still be heard barking somewhere in the neighborhood.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/16/good-guy-with-gun-tries-to-kill-neighbors-barking-dog-shoots-wrong-one/

Assholes like this guy give law abiding gun owners a bad name. Using guns to solve problems is not a good idea.
Incidents like this make arguments to ban guns more appealing.

[Kalidurga]

1. He should serve lots of time.

Not just for shooting the dog, but for threatening Loyce Andrews. I hope LE takes this seriously.

[still_one]

76. Not only that, it should also be taken to a civil court with punitive damages for loss of a dog

which can be considered part of a family

[Kber]

2. In my humble opinion

This kind of behavior should cost you your right to own a gun.

If your 3rd DUI (a felony in many states) costs you the right to vote, misusing your weapon should cost you the right to own such a weapon, at least temporarily.

[thucythucy]

5. This kind of behavior--

animal cruelty, and threatening someone with lethal force--should cost him his right to walk the street, for at least a couple of months.

I'm assuming, as a convicted criminal, he would then lose all rights to own or use a firearm.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Per the FBI site:

..."Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

This is one of the federal laws for disqualification. Some states may have other laws that may be tighter. Note also the actual sentence doesn't have to exceed one year. If the sentence imposed is for six months but if the 'crime is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year', that person is then disqualified from owning.

[thucythucy]

10. Sounds good.

Let's hope the prosecution follows through and knows what they're doing.

And if it was my pet that was butchered, I'd definitely go after the jerk in civil court.

[Jenoch]

13. They did take his guns, or at least the judge gave that order.

[gejohnston]

59. He has been charged with

He faces charges of felony animal cruelty and misdemeanors of reckless endangerment, aiming or discharging a firearm within Bellingham city limits, and illegal carrying, drawing or exhibiting of a weapon.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/09/15/3858807/bellingham-man-enraged-by-barking.html#storylink=cpy

If he is convicted of the felony animal cruelty (more accurately, pleads down to something lesser since he admitted it) it will be a federal crime to possess any firearm per the Gun Control Act.
Down side is that he is a "prominent banker" which means he will get community service unlike some guy in a trailer park.

[jollyreaper2112]

3. fuck

That man had better be a quick shot because otherwise I'm on him with my teeth in his throat.

I bet people who knew him well would not be surprised by this kind of behavior. I bet he treats others exactly the same way. What a scumfuck. Bet he'll be able to get this dummied down to a fine and a contrite letter of apology.

[Kber]

4. On a much less crazy note

My neighbors once called the cops on me at 2:00am because they thought my dog was barking.

Cops came. Saw my dog sleeping. Heard the barking from another house. Apologized and left.

They to the house of the real "culprit". Talked to the owners, who apologized and took their dog in.

Next day, the neighbor who called the police came over with brownies to apologize for their mistake.

We all are still civil at the annual block party, because that's how people are supposed to behave.

Otoh, should he have just shot my dog, I'd have had my cousins, whose source of income is questionable at best (international trade?) take care of the situation.

My dog is Family. Don't fuck with my family.

[BrotherIvan]

7. Add it to the list

Of why people cannot be trusted with a lethal weapon. Was he going to shoot the neighbor if they pissed him off too? Shut the kids up from crying over their dead pet by blasting them? Yay guns! His right to kill something trumps your right to live in peace!

[Straw Man]

9. Which people are those?

Add it to the list

Of why people cannot be trusted with a lethal weapon.

Because some asshole shot a dog, I can't own a weapon? Sorry, but that logic is severely flawed.

[daleanime]

54. Why?

Whose dog did you shoot?

[Straw Man]

63. Um ...

Whose dog did you shoot?

Nobody's. What could possibly have led you to that conclusion?

... he asked.

[daleanime]

67. The way you responded to the previous post....

he stated.

[Straw Man]

70. What are you trying to suggest?

... he asked, deliberately obtusely. Please be clear and specific.

[daleanime]

73. "deliberately obtusely"....

Suggesting nothing, was curious, have gotten answer.





Have good day.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I like that "deliberately obtusely"

Has to be the oxymoron of the day. Right up there with "Personal Safety Device", "Gun Safe" and "Microsoft Works"

[Starboard Tack]

68. How many assholes would it take for you to think differently?

Seriously. Today we have a grandfather in Florida who decided to shoot to death his daughter and her 6 children.
I beginning to wonder where I might start to draw the line.
Do you have a line? A limit? 100 a day? 1000 a day?

What is the answer? As long as guns are popularized as "problem solvers", then some people with guns will use them to solve problems.
There needs to be a radical change in how guns are characterized. "Personal Protection Device" does not cut it.
"Deadly Weapon" does.

[Straw Man]

71. Individual tragedies are not a scorecard for public policy.

Seriously. Today we have a grandfather in Florida who decided to shoot to death his daughter and her 6 children.
I beginning to wonder where I might start to draw the line.
Do you have a line? A limit? 100 a day? 1000 a day?

How many alcohol-related deaths before you want to ban alcohol? Currently we're at 88,000 per year. It's a serious question. You can skip all the cant about "what guns are designed for." Public health is public health, n'est-ce pas?

What is the answer? As long as guns are popularized as "problem solvers", then some people with guns will use them to solve problems.
There needs to be a radical change in how guns are characterized. "Personal Protection Device" does not cut it.
"Deadly Weapon" does.

Guns are either problem solvers or problem creators, depending on who wields them. They are always deadly weapons. Fools will be fools, and no amount of "characterization" will change that.

Tools are ethically neutral; it is the use to which they are put that defines the moral quality.

[Starboard Tack]

72. I don't want to ban anything.

Guns are either problem solvers or problem creators, depending on who wields them. They are always deadly weapons. Fools will be fools, and no amount of "characterization" will change that.

Tools are ethically neutral; it is the use to which they are put that defines the moral quality.

Only they are used to create far more problems than they solve, especially in the hands of those who think they are going to solve a problem.
I've used guns, on and off, since I was a kid. I never used one to create or solve a problem, and I think most gun owners would say the same thing.
The moment you cross the threshold of your house and go out into the world with a loaded gun on your person, you potentially become one of the people you're talking about, either a problem solver or a problem creator.

You are right, that guns are ethically neutral, it is the use they are put to that defines the moral quality. Uses like solving problems that can be solved far better in a myriad of ways. Like talking to the owner of the dog that was actually barking.

[Tumbulu]

11. Yes, a very long list! nt

[Eleanors38]

23. A list of 80,000,00+ gun-owners. Which ones?

[Tumbulu]

46. Yes, all of them- I am against idiots having access to firearms

and since there seems to be no shortage of them, then it's the guns that need to go.

[Duckhunter935]

53. And some say

nobody on DU wants confiscation and bans

[IronGate]

60. ...

Tumbulu

46. Yes, all of them- I am against idiots having access to firearms
and since there seems to be no shortage of them, then it's the guns that need to go.

Yeah, good luck getting that to happen.

[Tumbulu]

65. It will take about a decade, but it will happen

Too many crazy people, risk of disaster is too high. In about 8 yrs the insurance industry will demand a change. At least this is my prediction.

[Straw Man]

66. The insurance industry?

Too many crazy people, risk of disaster is too high. In about 8 yrs the insurance industry will demand a change. At least this is my prediction.

What is their interest in the issue? Are they incurring large payouts to the victims of gun accidents? Oh, you mean after you get the mandatory firearm insurance laws passed? You do know that the NRA is a major vendor of firearms liability insurance, right? Will they be leading the charge?

[IronGate]

69. Uh huh.

Funny thing is, I heard the same thing a decade ago, and a decade before that.

[Eleanors38]

64. Shortage: Of gun-owners or guns? One is human and huge.

[hack89]

14. I have a longer list of why people can't be trusted with alcohol

Based on the harm and grief it has caused me and my extended family. Yet it never crosses my mind to call for prohibition II.

[BrotherIvan]

17. Did you ever wish that inebriated person had a gun?

If no, why not?

[hack89]

19. It is a car in that drunk's hands that kills where I live

I have teenage drivers - I am very aware of the real threats to their well being.

[BrotherIvan]

24. You're not answering the question

Do you think a drunk person, an enraged person, an abuser, or an underage person should have a gun? Because when guns are easily accessible, all of those people in all of those states can get their hands on a gun. This is an article about someone who should not have a gun.

And yet, most 2A people only care that they have easy access to guns, disregarding all the idiots and dangerous people that then have easy access to guns for the same reason. If 2A people really truly cared about their rights as "responsible" gun owners, they would be pushing for background checks, licensing, training, safety features, and safe storage laws harder than anyone. Because every time there is an article like this, or a toddler shoots his brother, or a guy kills his wife, or kids get killed in school, the cry for tougher gun control grows.

[beevul]

25. Theres a reason for that.

"And yet, most 2A people only care that they have easy access to guns, disregarding all the idiots and dangerous people that then have easy access to guns for the same reason."

Theres a reason for that. It has to do with a certain bunch trying at every opportunity to use criminal events involving guns, against other people who own guns but did not and largely do not participate in those events.

This strategy has failed numerous times and consistently does so, yet it continues.

"If 2A people really truly cared about their rights as "responsible" gun owners, they would be pushing for background checks, licensing, training, safety features, and safe storage laws harder than anyone."

A variation of "if you really were reasonable, you'd agree with our wishlist".

"Because every time there is an article like this, or a toddler shoots his brother, or a guy kills his wife, or kids get killed in school, the cry for tougher gun control grows."

A variation of "capitulate now, before its too late".

[gejohnston]

26. just a few things

2A people really truly cared about their rights as "responsible" gun owners, they would be pushing for background checks, licensing, training, safety features, and safe storage laws harder than anyone.

Background checks have been federal law for 20 years, some states since the 1920s. Safety features have been on every firearm since their invention without any laws passed. The only way to enforce safe storage laws is not to have a fourth amendment. That is how they work in Europe and Canada. Licensing does not prevent criminal access to guns. See Chicago and Newark.

or a toddler shoots his brother, or a guy kills his wife, or kids get killed in school, the cry for tougher gun control grows.

Yet all of those things are very rare. Each of those are in the two digits each year. More people die from falling down the stairs.

[BrotherIvan]

30. The statistics are purposely murky

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all

A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available. As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.

The National Rifle Association cited the lower official numbers this year in a fact sheet opposing “safe storage” laws, saying children were more likely to be killed by falls, poisoning or environmental factors — an incorrect assertion if the actual number of accidental firearm deaths is significantly higher.

In all, fewer than 20 states have enacted laws to hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them.

Legislative and other efforts to promote the development of childproof weapons using “smart gun” technology have similarly stalled. Technical issues have been an obstacle, but so have N.R.A. arguments that the problem is relatively insignificant and the technology unneeded.

The problem is that 2A proponents argue against any and all regulation as does the NRA. Everyone always mentions car deaths, but we do our best to regulate and build in safety features. The trend for guns in some states is going in the exact opposite direction. If we closed gun show loopholes, passed UBC, worked on safe storage and gun owner insurance laws, etc. it would seem as if we could progress. As it stands now, there are too opposing factions and never the twain shall meet. Maybe after a few more massacres, things will change.

[gejohnston]

41. The NRA probably used the CDC data.

which is probably more objective than the New York Times. I would have to see each of their cases and how they came to those conclusions before I take them seriously. Like most people, I doubt the MSM's ability to report things accurately, honesty, and responsibly. The partisan media the, the left and right, I don't even take seriously.

The problem is that 2A proponents argue against any and all regulation as does the NRA.

Last I checked, the NRA supported Braydy NICS and previous federal gun laws including the Gun Control Act.

Everyone always mentions car deaths, but we do our best to regulate and build in safety features.

The gun industry is regulated much more than car industry. Guns are also much more regulated than cars under current laws. If we were to regulate guns the same as cars, all current federal gun control laws would have to be repealed. Even with that, the gun industry (on their own in the US and abroad) developed safeties and installed them on their own without any government requiring them to. For example the 1911 has three safeties. Neither the US or Belgian governments required John Browning to put them in the designs, but they are there. That is true for modern firearms be it Smith and Wesson developing the transfer bar safety in the 1950s and Ruger adapting it to "old west" style revolvers in the 1970s. What they are opposed to are governments requiring technology that doesn't exist outside of a James Bond movie.

The trend for guns in some states is going in the exact opposite direction.

Most of those laws were passed in the 1920s and lobbied for by the KKK and union busters.

If we closed gun show loopholes, passed UBC, worked on safe storage and gun owner insurance laws, etc. it would seem as if we could progress.

There is no "gun show loophole" it is a media term. A gun sale at a gun show is regulated exactly the same as a gun shop. Even the DoJ admits that UBC can not work without registration. Drug gangs do not go to gun stores or gun shows. Safe storage is doing quite well volunteer. What is the purpose of insurance other than to drive up the cost of legal gun ownership and take it out of the 99 percent? Make money for insurance companies? They would pay out only for accidents. They don't pay out for negligence or criminal acts. The gangs of Chicago are going to obey those just like they obey IL licencing laws, Chicago registration requirements.

As it stands now, there are too opposing factions and never the twain shall meet. Maybe after a few more massacres, things will change.

Because my side is based on logic, reason, facts, evidence. The other side is based on ignorance, emotion, and dishonesty. In short, my side is more ethical. It is really about culture war. I'm on the side who wants to reduce all of the 11K murders. Nothing you proposed will do anything about any of those. Massacres, did Tasmania's licensing and registration system stop someone with an IQ of 66 from illegally obtaining rifles to kill a bunch of people at Port Authur? And how about Australia's several mass murder by arson they have had since then with even higher death counts? Did Germany's strict gun laws stop the worst school shooting in history until Sandy Hook?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/04/18/why-the-gun-bill-deserved-to-lose-and-why-we-should-all-be-glad-it-did/
http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/12/28/a-rational-perspective-on-gun-control-from-eugene-volokh/

Here is the problem I have with gun activists: They talk about reducing "gun suicides" but do nothing about suicide prevention. It sounds like they care only how someone dies, not that a life was needlessly lost. "Gun homicides" never mind the many that are not killed with a gun. Never mind that our bong owning members really don't bother to ask why their drug connection probably illegally carries.

[DonP]

56. Ooooh, that's a lot of facts for people that prefer bumper sticker thinking.

"Guns and gun owners bad"

"NRA blocks all research"

"Gun crime is skyrocketing"

"Close the Gun show loophole" (Always from someone that's never been near a gun show, far too icky for them)

And my all time favorite; "If you were really a law abiding gun owner you'd _____________ (insert thoughtless gun control meme here)"

[hack89]

31. Of course I support rigorous background checks and storage laws.

I support all proposed gun control measures except AWBs and registration.

You take a rare event, used it to smear all legal gun owners, and then condemn us when we don't jump on your gun control bus. I don't share your fear of gun owners - they are not the ones killing people where I live.

[BrotherIvan]

37. Here we have arrived at reasonable discussion

On every article about a shooting, the pro 2A crowd, without fail, is always on there trying to minimize the incident and argue against regulation. Surely, DU is more moderate, but still clueless posters feel a school shooting, murder-suicide, or an accidental discharge story where a child dies is the right time to crow about their "rights," or how we can not and should never regulate lethal weapons. If the answer of responsible gun owners to these kinds of stories was similar to yours, we might get past the stalemate (though we would still argue about your two exceptions).

To give an example, if there was a story about drunk driving, what you would not see is everyone jumping on the comments screaming about how we can't regulate it. They usually express sorrow and a wish to help ensure this does not happen again. Not with guns. And it is entirely offensive in every way. It's the gunner attitude of "Your dead kids don't trump my rights!" that gets under my skin. It shows that you care more about your weapon that people who have been hurt or lost their lives.

[hack89]

38. And there are posters like you

that never fail, when presented with an OP of a rare event, to expound on how guns are evil and that legal gun owners are really a pre-criminals who cannot be trusted.

Your response to this OP was that no one can be trusted with guns.

What gets under my skin is your irrational moral panic. I don't give a shit that you don't like guns. I do give a shit that you feel your irrational perception is the norm and reason to restrict my civil liberties.

[BrotherIvan]

39. There it is.

[hack89]

40. Irrational fear mongering elicits strong responses

what can I say.

[ret5hd]

61. Is this civil liberty god-given?

[hack89]

62. I am an atheist so no

It is however, as part of the Bill of Rights, a fundamental civil liberty.

[ileus]

8. Doesn't sound like a very good guy....

Always know your target. Also avoid shooting nonthreatening pets.


No amount of incidents like this would ever convince me that being an easier victim is more appealing.

[hack89]

15. The good guy with a gun is a childish meme

Why do you think constantly repeating it reflects well on you or your cause?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Those who use memes like that do so to feel superior to those they put down

If someone's life is so bereft that they need to do it, I feel rather sorry for them...

[blueridge3210]

20. When all you have is a hammer.............(nt)

[Jenoch]

16. Obviously, what this guy did was wrong.

However nobody on this thread has said that the owner of the dogs was also wrong in allowing their dog to apparently to bark incessantly as to annoy the neighbors.

When I was a kid, the neighbors had a dog that they really did not want. It was in a kennel on the side of the house that faced our house. He was never outside of the kennel playing with their young children. They did not give a shit about their dog. My dad asked them to bring their dog into their house. Not surprisingly, the dog was not housebroken. My dad even recorded the dog's barking and delivered a cassette tape to the owners.

Fortunately, they moved away after less than a year. I felt sorry for that dog and he always stopped barking when I went to his kennel and gave him some attention.

[ileus]

21. Nothing worse than a barking dog that's for sure.

I've confronted neighbors about pain in the ass barking dogs before.

It's funny how the owners never seems to mind the barking...

[SheilaT]

28. This is the main reason that I more and more dislike dogs.

And I've certainly known plenty of good, non-barking dogs. Plus, dog owners tend to assume that everyone of course loves their dog, and too many of them are inclined to take the dog with them everywhere. I think we cat owners need to start doing that, just so people would start to get it that as much as they love their animal, the rest of us may not.

Besides, cats rarely meow constantly and annoy the neighbors, I suppose mainly because the meow sound doesn't travel as far as the barking.

[ileus]

32. With the dogs we "adopted" I warned the owner we'd ship

them back or to the pound if they were barkers....and I still had to think long and hard about taking them. Good news is they don't bark except at strangers.

I'm a cat person myself, never even once been annoyed by a kitty.

[Flyboy_451]

22. My first thought was

That it probably would have been more appropriate to shoot the owner.

Not acceptable by any standard, just more appropriate than shooting the dog (apparently the wrong dog in this particular case).

My experience has been that dog owners that allow their dogs to bark incessantly are very seldom interested in the annoyance of neighbors, or willing to do anything about it. My guess is that this problem was caused by both parties. The owner that refused to control his pet, and the neighbor that refused to control his temper.

[djean111]

27. In this case, he would have shot the wrong owner.

[tonedevil]

29. You do understand...

the dog that was shot was not barking it was a different neighbors dog. So no the dog that was shot was not doing anything wrong and the person who's dog was murdered wasn't letting their dog do anything wrong. Regarding your experience, annoying as it may have been, it still doesn't give anyone the right to shoot a perfectly healthy non threatening dog.

[Jenoch]

34. Go back and read my post again.

I said the guy was wrong to shoot the dog.

[tonedevil]

35. You also imply...

that the dog that was shot was the dog that was barking. It was not.

[Jenoch]

36. I did no such thing.

Where did you get that idea? I wrote that he was wrong to shoot the dog, nothing more, nothing less.

[tonedevil]

42. This...

"However nobody on this thread has said that the owner of the dogs was also wrong in allowing their dog to apparently to bark incessantly as to annoy the neighbors" is what I'm reacting to. I suppose I can read it as being aimed at the owner of the barking dog not the owner of the murdered dog, but since the barking dog wasn't shot I don't see why anyone is supposed to condemn barking dog owners in a thread about a mad man murdering a dog because he felt some general annoyance at dog noises.

[Jenoch]

43. Of course I was referring to the owners of the barking dog.

Who else woukd I be referring to, the owners who have a dog that WASN'T barking enough to annoy the neighbors?

[tonedevil]

44. An innocent dog...

was murdered. A different dog may have been barking enough to annoy the neighbors or maybe just enough to raise the ire of an armed psychopath, but you would like to discuss how annoying a dog barking can be. I don't think that is particularly germane to this conversation and I certainly don't think there is a reason to take others in the conversation to task for not mentioning it.

[Jenoch]

45. Not mentioning what?

Anyone reading this exchange between us is likely just as flabbergasted at it as am I.

[tonedevil]

47. Again, this...

"However nobody on this thread has said that the owner of the dogs was also wrong in allowing their dog to apparently to bark incessantly as to annoy the neighbors " is your first post in this thread. It is taking those commenting on this thread to task for not talking about how wrong it is to allow a dog to bark. That is some trivial stuff in comparison to murdering a dog, a dog that wasn't barking.

[Jenoch]

48. My first statement was that it was wrong to kill the dog.

I then pointed out the obvious, at least to anyone who has ever been bothered by a neighbor's barking dog, that incessent dog barking is annoying. I wrote one post pointing that out and you took offense. Wby, I have no idea.

By the way, by definition, the killing of an animal is not murder. That term is for the wrongful death of a person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

[tonedevil]

49. I will admit to using...

the word murder hyperbolically although in my defense I tend to equate companion animals with their human counterparts. I also clearly jumped down a rabbit hole with you and your statement of condemnation concerning the lack of discussion regarding the annoyance barking dogs. If not to provide fig leaf defense to the dog killer why try to turn the conversation toward barking and away from psychopaths with guns killing loyal companions. It seems even less appropriate in light of the fact that the dog that was killed wasn't even the so called offender.

[Jenoch]

50. This is getting tiring.

In my first post and in other subsequent posts, including this one, I have said that killing the dog was wrong. In an earlier post I pointed out that the judge ordered that the dog killer's guns be taken from him. I simply pointed out that the owners of the barking dog were wrong in that they allowed their dog to bark enough to annoy the neighbors. How can anyone (you) disagree with that. That is a rhetorical question, in fact I just removed the question mark.

[pansypoo53219]

33. they better remove ALL OF HIS GUNS + put him on the list to bar hm getting anymore + fucking search

his house weekly. hell. gun detector on his doors to make sure. after he serves his time. take his vote away to.

[DontTreadOnMe]

51. Remove all his guns.. forever. And community service at a dog shelter... for a year.

And one more thing... we have sexual predator alerts. When someone commits a serious sexual crime, they have to register in their area, so the public knows they live in that area.

Do the same thing with gun criminals. Commit a crime with a gun, go on a "Gun Predator Alert" list.

[whathehell]

52. Why would a 'good' guy shoot ANY dog just for barking?..Doesn't sound good to me. n/t

[blueridge3210]

58. It's a miserable schtick for some on the pro-control side.

Anytime someone does something bad with a gun they are a "good guy with a gun" that just suddenly snapped. The clear implication is that most gun owners are one bad telemarketing call away from full postal syndrome. Business as usual.

[samsingh]

55. he should be in prison

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. either prison or...

...locked up for mental treatment but locked up securely somewhere

[samsingh]

74. agreed

[samsingh]

75. i believe this is what the gun culture convinces people they can do these things

[ManiacJoe]

78. If you really believe that about your local "gun culture",

one does have to ask, where do you live?