Oh god... seriously can you not be safe anywhere these days?
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- A gunman who shot and killed five women in a clothing store at a suburban Chicago strip mall Saturday remains at large, police said.
Oh god... seriously can you not be safe anywhere these days?
CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- A gunman who shot and killed five women in a clothing store at a suburban Chicago strip mall Saturday remains at large, police said.
How fucking horrible!
This is horrible! And all the victims were women. I hope this guy has already killed himself to save the taxpayers the trouble of doing it for him.
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!
It SUCKS he's still at large. Hopefully the cops won't have a problem opening fire on him since he had no problem taking five peoples' lives.





Yes, this is somewhat in my area..they don't know the motive or anything.
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt
Interestingly,
"Police said security cameras in the store had allowed them to tentatively identify the man, who they said has a prior history of armed robbery and a homicide conviction, NBC5 reported."
And this creature is free why? Might have been a robbery gone bad vs just a nut looking to shoot up the mall, it's unclear at this time, but one thing is for sure, some how he didn't worry about the Gun Free Zone signs:
![]()
A cunning linguist...
Just horrible...totally. I hope they catch him.










Just saw this:
http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newssto...0203-211537955
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt
Thanx. So robbery appears to be the motive so far, so it's not really another mall shooting, but a robbery that took place in a mall, if catch my meaning. That's no help to the poor women who were shot dead however, but that it was not a random shooting at a mall, will probably make some feel better. Might also turn out to be a revenge thing, like an ex husband or what ever. That's what it sounds like to me. There is little to gain by killing everyone to rob a store, but criminals are not always the most logical or stable people. RIP to those poor women who were just trying to work their job at the mall.
A cunning linguist...
Thats fucking ridiculous. I hope they catch this scumbag.
Schwarzenegger says there is no money to keep em in prison in CA.
I know I have read over the years of prisoner releases because of overcrowding etc - another symptom of no money.
As I am sure you know, the country and many states are effectively bankrupt.
People are slowly turning around and realizing that "papa state" isn't going to be there for them in so many ways.
That's why I have a CPL (concealed pistol license). You have to learn to take care of yourself.
Thats not going to help you if someone just walks into a store and starts shooting at you.
Or if your walking down the street and end up in the middle of some random act of shooting.
Sorry but IMO carrying a gun is just asking for more problems then it will solve.
Im very anti gun.
This is a topic that has been well covered in other threads, and you are wrong. The data is quite clear: having a gun greatly increases your chances of survival period. You can be as anti gun as you wish, but it will not change thet facts there. I can direct you to the threads here that covered those issues, as to not repeate the topic here. A short for example, the 911 thread I started:
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=106247
A short article:
WOMEN, 911 AND GUNS
American women are often taught to rely on emergency 911 police
responses in the event of physical aggression. Unfortunately, more
than 95 percent of 911 calls are not dispatched to police in time to
stop a crime or arrest a suspect.
This sad statistic is unlikely to improve significantly in the near
future because almost every state has ruled that police have no legal
obligation to protect citizens from crime.
The slowness of 911 emergency response -- and the ineffectiveness of
restraining orders issued by today's courts -- suggests that
self-defense may be a better option, according to attorneys Richard
Stevens, Hugo Teufel and Matthew Biscan.
"A woman with a firearm...can credibly threaten and deter an attacker
of any size, shape, or strength," they write in THE WOMEN'S
QUARTERLY. "Even though weaker and unskilled in the use of firearms,
she can sometimes protect herself with a sidearm without firing a
shot. In more than 92 percent of defensive gun uses, the defender
succeeds by firing only a warning shot or never firing the gun at
all." (The article is excerpted from their chapter in the Independent
Institute book LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism in the
Twenty-first Century, edited by Wendy McElroy.)
The above may help explain why, in recent years, women have
reportedly purchased firearms and enrolled in gun-safety classes in
record numbers.
Stevens, Teufel and Biscan conclude: "Individual women in peril quite
frequently fare better when they develop skill and confidence in the
carrying and using of defensive firearms. Victim disarmament ("gun
control") laws that discourage women from developing the skills and
using defensive firearms actually heighten the risks of criminal
violence that women face. Such laws place women at a disadvantage
against violent men and run against the feminist goal of equal
treatment under the law."
See "Disarming Women," by Richard W. Stevens, Hugo Teufel III, and
Matthew Y. Biscan (THE WOMEN'S QUARTERLY, Summer 2002)
http://www.independent.org/tii/light...ink4-30-3.html
A longer version of this article appears in LIBERTY FOR WOMEN:
Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Wendy
McElroy. See http://independent.org/tii/content/briefs/b_lfw.html
************************************************** *********************
Professor Joseph Olson Hamline University School of Law
A cunning linguist...
Not to threadjack, but as I am in Chicagoland, I feel it's my right (as a NON gun-owning citizen) to respond to the NRA fantasy above of "self-protecting" gun owners.
The stats are clear: Gun owners are far, far more likely to kill themselves, someone they know (or be shot by someone they know) than to stop some random maniac.
It's clear you have done zip for research on this topic and the myths you mention were debunked a long time ago in the peer reviewed data. Attempting to blame it all on the NRA is a typical response. Let's start with a few of the myths you state. Question, have you followed the primary data as I have, spoken with the researchers (none of whom have ever been funded by the NRA et al) or follow the lit in this area in general? I have supplied more then enough support for any statements I make on this topic.
The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns
by
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.
America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.
Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.
Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).
Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.
How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.
These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.
Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
A cunning linguist...





So what, school shootings are out of style these days?
I think if you've had a horrible life and you're angry or sad or whatever, and you need to shoot someone go home and shoot your fucking self.
That's sad, but why the hell is there a need to go on a rampage and kill strangers?!
Well actually, as fu*& as it is, yes, nuts do pay attention to what other nuts are successful doing, and what gets the most attention. Their psychosis dictates the need for that attention and finding the most victims who will put up the least resistance. So, yes, a certain place can and does become the “in” place to go on a rampage with these types if others are successful with the strategy, ergo, the well known "copy cat" syndrome.
From your mouth to their ears I hope...
Sad is an understatment. However, this one does not appear to be a random shooting and robbery or revenge appears to be what happended here, but the facts are not out, but that's what is being said.
A cunning linguist...
Taking a turn for Member Boards, I see. Can we please lay off political rhetoric in the Lounge? "I'm anti gun." "That's why I carry a gun." Those are not political. Republishing treatises, stats, and engaging in op-ed: that's political.
Bookmarks