What are the odds of this being another William Freund?

Post Reply New Topic

Journalists have a shorter attention span than an ADHD kid double fisting candy at a haloween party. They'll be off chasing the next big story or whatever shiny object catches their attention (whichever comes first) soon enough , and most of the public's attention will follow.


That's cool that you will get to be on TV (I don't have cable, so can somebody please post the clip when it gets aired?), but personally, I don't trust Geraldo's credibility. Please be sure to mention that some members here own guns and that we take care to use them responsibly as defined by our respective local laws. Thanks.

Alex- Have you been interviewed yet, and will it be on this evening?

Alex will this interview be on the Fox News Channel and do You Know When It Will Be Aired too.

I did not reproduce the offending posts, obviously. They said some very nasty and 'racist' things about Jews afterwards. In many countries there are laws agains inciting racial and religious hatred in the way they were.

please be sure to mention that some members here think that guns are loathsome. thanks.

sean, this tragedy is not a opportunity for you to promote your pro-gun crusade.

Quite. Only a right-winger could turn a gun massacre into an excuse to promote the merits of gun ownership!

Did Will actually break any laws in the purchase or ownership of the guns that were used? That is an unknown at this point, even considering the posts he made. I don't doubt the shop owner who made the tragic blunder of selling him those guns also believes in responsible gun ownership...

I'm not trying to go on a pro-gun crusade. I am trying to check any liberal gun control propaganda that might benifit from this. It is true that many members don't like guns. However, it is also true that out of the gun owning members in WP, Will Freund is the only one that was irresponsible with his.

FYI: Gun Shop owners do care about responsible ownership. They need to know it to advise their cusomers in purchasing decisions, they need to encourage it so that their customers don't end uop dead or in jail, and they need to promote it to keep their buisness and hobby from being banned. The gun store's records are reviewed periodically, and they can be put out of buisness for handing over a gun to a customer without a background check or completing the 10 buisness day wait. Will Freund Simply put on a good enough act to avoid appearing dangerous. Even though he aquired the gun, there were other things that his parents could have done to change the outcome, even if the gun was left in his posession.

The government is forbidden from banning public hate speech here, but inciting violence is illegal.

And furthermore, WillFreund also said that he bought the shotgun in question from a 'couple of old farts from the gunstore', (I believe the quote was, but I'm not sure) which can be interpreted as private transaction that does not necessarily involve the gunstore itself, in which case the gunstore in question would be little more than a point of contact for those performing the transaction, and not an actual participant in the transaction. --I believe that if that were the case, it would be pointless to hold the Gun Store responsible.

Don't you see that is my point entirely Sean? The gun shop was probably trying to be responsible but still sold weapons to someone who should never have been in possesion of a catapult, let alone a high calibre ranged weapon. That shows what a fat lot of good that shopkeepers responsible attitude did.



So it's wrong for people to object to the sale, use and ownership of guns because of a massacre involving legally purchased weapons?

Are you saying we should ignore the consequences of irresponsible gun ownership and use because the majority can own a gun without going off on a killing spree?




So far there's just the one. In my book, one massacre of innocent people is one too many.

FYI, I'm far from a wooly thinking liberal you might think I am. I believe in the free market and the responsibility of the individual. But I also believe that there is a role in law for people to be protected from the dangerous minority.
As it is difficult to defend oneself from someone carrying a hidden gun until it is too late, how can the carrying of such weapons ever be considered reasonable in a public place?

Living in a country where guns are rare (UK), I feel much safer knowing that if a burglar enters my home at night I'm very unlikely to be shot dead in my sleep. Plus, if I have to confront someone, I've got a fighting chance without depending on who happens to get the first shot in...

Eeek! This thread wasn't supposed to be about guns anyway!

Doesn't that re-enforce the issue even further? Even if all gun store owners are 100% responsible and somehow avoid selling weapons to dangerous people, there's still a private market in 2nd head guns which cannot be easily controlled by experienced gun stores.

Here in CA it is a felony to sell a gun to anyone under 21, so you have to wonder how he got around that?

Hmm. It isn't actually clear whether he bought the guns over the counter or not.

Anyway, such speculation doesn't really change what happenened.

Without the facts at hand, we're (me included) are just spouting crap!

In California, all gun transactions must be done through a licensed dealer to be legal. The only alternative to this is the black market, which exists even in countries where guns are banned without exception.

Yep, but with gun ownership so prevalent, the black market is obviously going to be much bigger in the US than the UK (for example).

Whichever way you dress it up, in a country where a good, trustworthy person can go and buy a deadly weapon, the chances of a screwed up psycho getting hold of the same weapon will increase.

What I can't understand is, if you enjoy shooting so much, why can't you just go to a shooting club that looks after the weapons for you?
I've been crossbow shooting several times (and enjoyed it too) but never felt the need to take one home?

Sorry if that's a gross oversimplification!

I just wanted to say that I think Alex and Dan have done a good job representing wrongplanet during this, as per usual.

Here is the link to the LA times follow up piece called "Threats Online: Is There A Duty To Tell"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cyber2nov02,1,2847920.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Just a quote from it: