Authorities: 4 dead in shooting in rural Blair Country, PA

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently another whacko got a gun today and went walking (or possibly driving) along a minor road in the boonies several miles outside the small town of Hollidaysburg, PA, shooting people who came by. It was an area far from town, near a small stream, where it was easy to look around and make sure no police were present.

Cops say that 4 people are dead. When police finally came out from town, three of them were injured, one in a car crash, one by debris, and one who was shot in his bulletproof vest according to authorities.

If this whacko had been in an area where ordinary people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, he'd probably know that many people don't bother carrying anyway... but that a few probably would. Would the whacko have been as willing go go around shooting people in that situation?

--------------------------------------------

http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/sources-1-trooper-shot-another-injured-blair-co/nTcf5/

4 dead in Blair Co. shooting; 3 troopers injured

By WJAC Web Staff
Updated: 12:42 p.m. Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 | Posted: 10:41 a.m. Friday, Dec. 21, 2012

BLAIR COUNTY, Pa. — The Blair County district attorney said that four people, including the alleged gunman, are dead after a series of shootings along a rural road on Friday.

The district attorney said the victims are one woman and three men, including the gunman.

Three Pennsylvania state troopers were injured. One was shot in the chest and had a bulletproof vest on; one was injured in a crash; and one was injured by flying debris. All three troopers are expected to be OK.

The scene covers several miles and happened on Juniata Valley Road just outside Geeseytown.
Courtney Brennan of WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh reported that the suspected gunman was “mobile” at one point and went up and down a rural road and shot victims.

 

[Openmind]

Very strange that every gun owner who uses his gun to commit a crime is suddenly labeled a "whacko."
Actually, it seems that just about anyone who owns a gun can turn out to be a whacko!

In fact, there is 43 X more chance that he will turn out to be a "whacko" than to end up using his gun for "defense!"

 

[cashmcall]

Very strange that every gun owner who uses his gun to commit a crime is suddenly labeled a "whacko."
Actually, it seems that just about anyone who owns a gun can turn out to be a whacko!

In fact, there is 43 X more chance that he will turn out to be a "whacko" than to end up using his gun for "defense!"

In the best published study of mass shootings, it was found that 99 had occurred between 1980 and 2010. We know that a number of mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. All but one of the “successful” mass shootings occurred in areas where armed citizens are banned. A comparison of mass shootings stopped by 911 response vs mass shootings stopped by citizens indicates that when citizens are able to stop the killing, they prevent 84 percent of the deaths.
Mass shooting study link
Mass shootings Stopped by Armed Citizens
Armed Citizen stopped shooting average 2.3 deaths, 911 response average, 14.3 deaths (84% reduction)
Definitions and precise numbers vary by researcher, but it is clear that at least 10 percent of mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens. I believe this is the minimum number, the actual number may be much higher, because when a citizen stops an intended mass shooting early, it never becomes a successful mass shooting and may never become a news story of note. For example, in the recent Clackamas Mall shooting, an armed citizen may well have cut the killings short without firing a shot. While we can never be certain, a large percentage of mass shooters stop killing and commit suicide when they are confronted with armed force.
Clackamas CCW video
The problem of quantifying mass shootings stopped by armed citizens is exacerbated by the inablility to know the intentions of a dead attacker. Some attackers leave notes, making their intentions clear, as did the Santa Clara shooter in 1999, or the AT&T store shooter in 2010. Some announce their intentions, or otherwise indicate that they intend to kill many people. But these are the rare cases. If an attacker attempts to kill many, but is stopped at the beginning of the attack or after a few shots are fired, it is impossible to know if a mass killing was stopped, or if it was only one of thousands of more ordinary crimes stopped by armed citizens.
Santa Clara Shooting Link
AT&T Store shooting Link
It is clear that the number of mass shootings has decreased as the number of armed citizens has increased. Three decades ago, there were very few citizens with concealed carry permits. Most states did not allow concealed carry. The increase in concealed carry states mostly occurred after 1994, and the bulk of concealed carry permits have been issued after the turn of the new millenium. Even today, less than 2.6% of the population has concealed carry permits, and 30 percent of the population of the country live in states where it is very difficult to obtain a permit, or in the case of Illinois, impossible. The first decade of the millennia showed a remarkable drop in mass shootings, a 44 percent reduction, according to Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections . These numbers are compatible with research published in 1999, that showed a drop in mass shootings with increased concealed carry permits.
Growth of CCW permits:
Current number of CCW permits:
Mass shooting study link
Mass shootings in gun free zones link
Link to paper
While it is too early in this decade to determine if the trend will continue, reducing the number of places that ban armed citizens will likely result in more citizens being able to stop the mass shootings in the early stages, sometimes before any innocents are killed.
Dean Weingarten

 

[Aus22]

cashcall, Your own figures show that mass killings in the 2000s was second only to 1990. In Australia there has been no mass killings since all automatic and semi automatic weapons were ban in 12006.. This reduction is not due to people firing back, as all weapons are ban for civilians and police do not use them as first resort. The only solution is to ban weapons. Even Europe has less shotoings because of their bans,

 

[Gipper]

Very strange that every gun owner who uses his gun to commit a crime is suddenly labeled a "whacko."
Actually, it seems that just about anyone who owns a gun can turn out to be a whacko!

In fact, there is 43 X more chance that he will turn out to be a "whacko" than to end up using his gun for "defense!"

You demand others provide links to credible sources, but you don't. Why?

 

[dogtowner]

You demand others provide links to credible sources, but you don't. Why?

she attempts to ignore her history. following the example of he of the large ears...

 

[Gipper]

she attempts to ignore her history. following the example of he of the large ears...

Well you know...she and Big Ears are right and we are wrong...it is just that simple....in their minds.

The facts and the reality of any issue are meaningless to them.

 

[GenSeneca]

The only solution is to ban weapons.

So your 'solution' to people abusing their rights is to take the right away from everyone... even people who have not and will never abuse that right.

Why doesn't this line of reasoning hold true with your other rights?

For example, lots of people abuse their right to free speech (e.g. Westboro baptist), I don't see you arguing for a ban on free speech as the 'solution' to that problem.

What would your reaction be if someone tried to ban your right to free speech due to the actions of someone else?

 

[GenSeneca]

Very strange that every gun owner who uses his gun to commit a crime is suddenly labeled a "whacko."

What makes that 'strange'? Unless you really believe all gun owners are 'whacko' to begin with...

 

[dogtowner]

Well you know...she and Big Ears are right and we are wrong...it is just that simple....in their minds.

The facts and the reality of any issue are meaningless to them.

at least BO knows when he is fabricaring things

 

[Openmind]

at least BO knows when he is fabricaring things

Another low insult from you!

What a prince of a fellow you are! Obviously you have all the qualifications of a fair and balanced moderator!

 

[Gipper]

So your 'solution' to people abusing their rights is to take the right away from everyone... even people who have not and will never abuse that right.

Why doesn't this line of reasoning hold true with your other rights?

For example, lots of people abuse their right to free speech (e.g. Westboro baptist), I don't see you arguing for a ban on free speech as the 'solution' to that problem.

What would your reaction be if someone tried to ban your right to free speech due to the actions of someone else?

The Left elite want our guns so we are defenseless against the tyranny of the state. Sadly many people are duped into believing taking away rights will somehow lead to a safer society. People who think this way are sheep. They want the government to provide safety, when that is impossible.

These sheeple will believe whatever the elite tell them to do.

Gary North has a good column...he ends it with the prediction that the end of the nation state is near and that the USA is most likely to witness political de-centralization because of our guns rights....I hope he is right.

Symbols are important. A citizen who has the right to keep and bear arms, even though he is not planning to join the state militia, which is in fact an arm of the federal government, understands that he possesses a degree of sovereignty that is not possessed by citizens in nations that prohibit widespread firearm ownership. He understands that he is in a unique situation. He still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government's exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.
The reason why gun control advocates want this right overturned is because they are in favor of centralized political control. They believe that their class, namely, the intellectual class, is in control of the agencies of civil government. For the most part, this assumption is correct. They assume that their class, and only their class, has the wisdom to allocate weapons. They believe that their class alone possesses the right to determine which citizen has access to weapons, under which circumstances, and for how long.
In effect, the gun-control advocate is rather like a medieval knight in the 15th century. He resents the fact that weapons are becoming cheaper, and that the common man who joins the Army becomes a threat to his social class, and therefore to his social standing. He resents the fact that his weapons no longer give him a monopoly of violence. Weapons have come onto the market, and these weapons can be used effectively by commoners who do not spend decades of training in their use.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10459.cfm

 

[dogtowner]

Another low insult from you!

What a prince of a fellow you are! Obviously you have all the qualifications of a fair and balanced moderator!

its not my fault rhe prez is a habitual liar. note i did not go with pathalogical as he is genuinly deceitful quite intentionally.

 

[Openmind]

its not my fault rhe prez is a habitual liar. note i did not go with pathalogical as he is genuinly deceitful quite intentionally.

Yes dear. Whatever you say, dear.

"Do not feed the troll. It's like wrestling a pig, you just get covered in shit and the pig likes it."

One thing we can actually agree on!

 

[cashmcall]

Yes dear. Whatever you say, dear.

"Do not feed the troll. It's like wrestling a pig, you just get covered in shit and the pig likes it."

One thing we can actually agree on!

I think I could agree with you on a lot of things...if you would just admit your wrong..