AP story on killings

Thats OK - another year or two and the old media won't exist any more. The most liberal rags are already gone (Seattle PI, Rocky Mtn News), the Strib is on it's very last legs, the Philly papers are close to gone, so is the Boston rag....

And the value of the NYTimes? About that of GM, but no bailout (yet). In five years time the only association people will have with AP is armor-piercing.

The KC (Red) Star has gone into it's death spiral.

On the same day they cut the size of the paper about 40% they also raised the subscription rate by 15%.

This is after three (or four?) rounds of layoffs.

I'll miss the comics page - it's faster to read them all from the paper then it will be to pull them all up online. I'll have to take the time to make myself my own comics webpage.

I also understand that murder is against the law, and the penalties are severe.

For liberty to survive the old media must be put down.

As far as comics go, almost all that I read are on the Washington Post web page. All in one place, except for day-by-day

What stupidity! The author is equating a right to own or to carry, with a right to commit a criimal act. Typical "thinking" by a postmodern-trained journalist.

"...legally entitled to wield the waepons he opened fire with..."? Ah, no. This is factual night soil of low quality.

Not one of these murderers was entitled to open fire on others. Own a weapon? Yup, but that does not entitle you to open fire except on a range or in another lawful circumstance. These people are so busy emoting they can't think or even put words together.

This must be why you can't comment on AP's website...the server would crash under the weight of grammatical and logical criticism they would get.

I would like to know, Is there a relationship between party in power and mass kllings by private persons in the US? I wonder if those who wish to expand gun control might not be using agent provocateurs to push certain people over the edge. Maybe it's just a sign of the current times.

"Nearly every gunman in this month-long series of mass killings was legally entitled to wield the weapons he opened fire with."

Uh, yeah. See Constitution, Amendment II. There is no legal "entitlement" to own a firearm...

Guess they were legally entitled to yell fire in a crowded theater also

As for Binghamton, the shooter was not "legally entitled to carry". Federal building, hence federally forbidden for anyone to carry inside. I.E. "gun free zone". Shooter was not "legally entitled" to carry into the building at all. Nor was his victims, hence nobody was able to stop the carnage. His victims were "federally required" to be helpless sitting ducks under current law.

I wrote to the AP about this article, and Ms. Hastings (the author). No reply to date. No amended story to date. No retraction to date.

Sometimes, when I've pointed out these "issues", authors are honest enough to change the article.

Sometimes, they aren't.

Another case in point is the Gallup Poll, who changed the title from objective to subjective (now implying that the recent shootings have increased public support for gun control). I wrote them too, and they claim to be "processing" the letter.

Maybe the journalists are asking the questions about what conditions define legally entitled use of force because they want to open a dialog with the American people, you know, just sorta throwing it out there for a consensus. Or not.

I think most everyone can agree when a persons life is in danger that would be a good candidate for the use of force. Look, these things are spelled out in the states laws aren't they, you know, the use of force and what level of force that can be be used?

Isn't that what defines law-abiding citizen(tm), a person who doesn't run afoul of the laws as spelled out, and not comparatively those who personally interpret the laws. It really doesn't work to look to the founding fathers for help with this, you know, the one's who wrote the 2nd, for their definition and emphasis of legally entitled speaks to a different rationale for the use of force, at least from a historical understanding.

@FWB
How do you define a mass killing, simply more that one?

And I know there is an X-files episode that play-acts through your idea of agent provocateurs. In it the producers expand how the term going postal is explained.

Regarding your question of relationship between party in power and occurrence, I suspect the per capita rate has remained constant since at least 1900 that would mean in a direct relationship the frequency of occurrences would naturally increase. Assigning them to party in power would be useful to those attempting to influence policy makers, and we already have the news media for that. There is an interesting report on the sensationalizing of mass killings and it's attempted and real influence on those who make policy here: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/duwe.htm#endnote14

Make that URL http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v6n1/duwe.htm

@FWB
In this report, http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/DRIWP/DRIWP10.pdf

it seems mass killings occur more often world wide in political systems where there is ***partial democracy***. I don't normally read through whole reports like this, I simply cut to the pertinent information.

I don't remember similar reporting when police go bad -- People are flawed, they cross the center line and head-on others everyday.