Tom Lynn/AP
Breaking News from CNN explains that the gunman who killed 6 others in a Wisconsin Sikh temple, who is now being linked to white supremacist groups, actually killed himself, rather than being shot by police:
“[the man whom] who police say fatally shot six people in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on Sunday, died that day from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head after he was shot in the stomach by a responding officer, Teresa Carlson, the special agent in charge for the FBI in Milwaukee, said Wednesday.
Read more at CNN.com
Does this change the way you see the shooter or the acts of violence? Or is it inconsequential?
About Joanna Schroeder
Brings it up to about 95% that when a guy with a gun shows up the perp offs himself. This is a lesson learned after Columbine.
It also adds to the point that having gun-free zones–when seconds count the cops are only minutes away–provides happy shooting grounds to these clowns.
The conclusion, icky though it may be, is that having CCL folks around can save lives. See, for example, Pearl, MS and the Appalachian School of Law (something like that)
Yeah, it proves that at his core he’s a f–king coward who would rather do himself in than face the music as would a true devotee to any cause, even the completely wrongheaded and f–ked-up ones like his.
Thanks, Richard, for not answering the question asked. But hey, when presented with an opportunity to politicize an event and hawk your own position, why not go for it right?
As to the question, no, it doesn’t really change it for me. They guy was broken in some sense. And on top of it, a confirmed coward.
Kind of funny you basically get on him for turning a tragedy into a political agenda. Let me guess, anti-gun liberal?
Liberals are the ones that throw the first stone. Every time a shooting occurs its liberals fear mongering, its liberals sitting there horrifying it and spewing incorrect date as much as possible. People always use tragedies and turn them into political agendas. A shooting happens = Gun control debate
Rev. What I think of the guy is monumentally irrelevant. Meaningless. In fact, option C was “inconsequential”.
The shooter is what it is, was what he was, and we’ll speculate for days, pushing our pet theme (patriarchy, racism, religious intolerance, guns, drug use, neo-nazis, etc.) And we’ll never know anything except for his writings and songs. Which only push back the question; how’d he get like this? Why Sikhs? So our speculations will continue to be fruitless.
However, out in the real world are real people who may subject to another attack like this. It’s not a bad idea–real-world wise–to be concerned about the next body count and how to keep it down.
I go with C. Inconsequential.
This guy was a nutcase. Either he’s the same kind of nutcase as Hasan or Holmes or Loughner or Kinkle. Or he’s not.
What he is, like Holmes, is a blank sheet on which we project whatever our particular bete noir is. Racism. Tea Party (Loughner, Holmes), Religious intolerance. American culture of violence. Patriarchy. And then there will be no evidence that we’re right or wrong.
There can be little evidence about what should be done to prevent another shooting from beginning and discussing ways to ameliorate one when it starts is clearly unacceptable.
Some folks have looked at one legal issue here, and it might be a good thing to get up to speed on the thing:
Colorado is a CCL state. People who carry do so for reasons of self-defense and the law allows for that. When an institution, theater, church, shopping mall, is posted “gun-free”, then they are forbidding CCL folks who carry from entering. IOW, taking away a legal method of self-defense. Does the institution then, by its act, then accept the responsibility for defending the people inside and can they be sued for failing to do so? Seems to me it would take one successful suit and gun-free zones would disappear.