Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected
Family Health · Health Check · Schools · Time Saver/Traffic · Gas Prices · Backpack Journalist · Mom to Mom · City Cams · School Closings · HS Cribs · McKnight Investigates · DTV
WOWT.com on Demand
6 On Your Cell
News, Sports & Weather
Information On Your Cell
Text ALERTS
Breaking News Alerts
Direct to Your Cell Phone
Daily e-News
News & Weather Updates
delivered via email
You Cast
Submit Your Pics
and Video
What's on 6
Your Guide to NBC
& WOWT Programming
6 News Features
McKnight Investigates
Catch all of McKnight Investigates here.
Heartland's Most Wanted
Catch all of Heartland's Most Wanted here.
Product Recalls
Check for threats that might be in your home.
Family Health
Don't miss the latest from Family Health.
On Your Side
Don't miss the latest On Your Side segments.
Doctor Calls For Ban Of Assault Weapons Save Email Print
"These are...weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people"
Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com

A | A | A

The doctor who has treated Von Maur shooting victim Fred Wilson spoke candidly Wednesday about social issues that came out of this tragedy, like mental health care and the availability of assault weapons.

"I have no anger whatsoever toward him, no anger whatsoever toward Robert Hawkins." While Fred Wilson spoke about forgiving the mall shooter, his doctor mentioned was using this tragic example as a reason why the weapon the shooter used, an AK-47, should be banned.

"Basically the faster the bullet is going the more damage it does, that's a basic, physical principle,” says Nebraska Medical Center Trauma Medical Director Dr. Joseph Stothert. “These are very high velocity weapons that are only meant to destroy tissue and kill people."

Nebraska Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha couldn't agree more. "I agree with the doctor, there is no good reason to have assault weapons for protection, for hunting."

"They're involved in many cases with that kind of horrible, horrible, horrible destruction and death, from Columbine to Westroads. I don't know how much more we need to know."

Ashford says banning assault weapons on a state level won't work, it must be on the federal level, like the 10-year ban passed in 1994 that ended in 2004.

Still, the senator has drawn up two proposed bills on gun control he'll introduce in the next legislative session. "Ensure that firearms are safely stored in the home, that the weapons that are stolen from the home are reported to police officers." Both were issues in the mall shootings.

Ashford's other proposed bill deals with how guns are bought. "A bigger issue is, should we be selling assault weapons without background checks."

Senator Ashford says he is happy to see support from Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey and Police Chief Thomas Warren. Fahey is even part of a national coalition of mayors against illegal guns.

Channel 6 News called area guns stores for a comment, but no one would talk. We also reached the National Rifle Association, which offered no comment.

More Stories
Officer Takes Ford Documents

Thefts From Heartland Churches

More Jobs Lost in Nebraska

Funeral Arrangements Set for Former ISU Player

Free Security Cameras to Help Deter Crime

Search for Missing Man

UNL Students Building Edible Cars

Fire Victim's Mother Headed to Trial

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Bill on Jan 4, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Yet another fine example of blaming and inanimate object. Want to fix the problem, start with the mental health system itself and with the enforcment of law that are already on the books. CA, MD, and IL all have very restrictive gun laws and are STILL some of the most dangerous states in the union.

Posted by: James on Dec 29, 2007 at 05:36 AM
I'm getting sick of hearing this assault weapon baloney a semi automatic gun is not an assault weapon, I don't care what the 1994 crime bill said.

Posted by: John on Dec 24, 2007 at 08:23 AM
Who's going to keep assault weapons out of the hands of 12 million illegal aliens? Let's remember that on 9/2/07 Mexico's president demanded the U.S. surrender it's soveriegnty. An unfreindly gesture to say the least. Most of our military troops are overseas supposedly fighting terrorism. In the meantime who's left watching the store? Our federal government isn't making a serious effort to guard our borders. Between 10/1/07 and 12/18/07 there have been 250 assaults on border agents. I don't think it's a good time to tell our citizens that they shouldn't own a gun.

Posted by: Chris on Dec 22, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Win - Perhaps you can tell us the difference between the AK-47's original design and the AK-47 used in the Von Maur. I'll give you a hint: there's a huge difference between Hummers' original design and Hummers designed for street use. It's people like you who use this misinformation to ban a weapon that isn't guilty in this crime or Columbine! Most of you secretly want to assault gun owners, whether you'll ever admit it or not! Thank God that sometimes the will of the majority is smart enough to regulate the potential dangerous actions of the minority here in the good old USA!

Posted by: TylerDurden on Dec 22, 2007 at 05:46 PM
Sen. Ashford, Dr Stothert, Your aware the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 fame didnt ban the ownership of assault weapons right?- just the manufacture of. You guys are really smart though so you knew that. But for those who are a bit slow. Not the ownership of. But lets pretend that some knee jerk reaction culminates in the passing of some Orwellian law and the federal government bans semi automatic assault rifles. Why stop there? Im sure Dr Stothert gets tired of seeing what drug do to peoples lives. We should pass laws banning dru...nevermind. Do you seriously believe that millions of gun owners will relinquish their $,$$$(sorry Kay) assault rifles without any compensation for their loss. Assuming the disarmament goes well, and no lucrative blackmarket emerges and millions of weapons are turned over to the government and destroyed(right!), and narcissistic young adults still murder people at malls and churches which one of my "inallienable" rights will you take from me then?

Posted by: Jesse on Dec 22, 2007 at 01:18 PM
It is sad when our leaders use tragic event like this to try and push thru bills that attack hour second amendment right. Ashford's proposal is a cheap stunt, salivating at a moment like this to further his political ambitions. If you are against owning guns or banning assault riffles I have no problems with you but please don't let Ashford use an emotionally charged time to look like our knight in shining armor to deliver us from those who might harm. Ashfords motives are an insult to public who elected him. I don't like guns and don't want one but there is a reason God gave us this right. I support the second amendment and support those who died for it. This soon to be voted out senator has pulled the wrong stunt at the wrong time.

Posted by: Jed on Dec 21, 2007 at 09:51 PM
So, DR... ban assault weapons... yes.. my asault weapon I own is so dangerous sitting in the safe, locked up.. used only for non-violent things. Does it ever occur to you gun grabbers that it's not the weapon, it's the person??? What is going to stop someone from making pipe bombs or other explosives and setting them off in malls, schools, etc? Keep your hands off my firearms, and go after the system that fails these mentally ill people who do such bad things.

Posted by: Tim on Dec 21, 2007 at 08:39 PM
Earlier this year, the DC circuit court ruled on DC's gun ban. The summary of their decision follows: "To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Posted by: Mike on Dec 21, 2007 at 06:20 PM
The doctor is typical of naive elitists who don't face crime every day -- Columbine happened during the Clinton gun ban. Canada's ten worst mass murderers: no guns. Japan: gun-free and world's highest suicide rate. Hunting rilfes: 3000fps. AK-47:2300fps. Kay: Are Bush and Cheney on the "lower end of the soci-economic scale" or are they the "rich" you would rail against if the issue were "Haliburton?" I accept your apology. Send your thank yous on behalf of the 100 lives saved by a gun in Colorado to Jeanne Assam.

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2007 at 05:25 PM
In response to KAY from Gretna, lower end of the socio-economic scale huh? Seems that most of the gun owners I know are fairly well off and educated folks, now im talking of course about the responsible,legal gun owners, not the gang bangers and the crazed mall shooters, If you are indeed as educated as you would want people to think you are, then you would certainly know that it doesnt matter which one of the bills rights are taken away, if any are then that is less rights that you have, and then eventually none. The gun that was used in this crime was stolen, the nra has nothing to do with it so since you live in rural Nebraska why dont you shut off your computer and go outside, listen to the hunters gunshots while weeping and hugging a tree

Posted by: Tim on Dec 21, 2007 at 04:21 PM
Wow Kay, what did you major in at Harvard? Broad sweeping statements? Gunowners come from all walks of life and economic/education backgrounds. You need to get out more.

Posted by: Wow on Dec 21, 2007 at 03:44 PM
Kay are you telling me that those people who own guns capable of killing big game like those in Africa are all poor? You do know that you are being predjudiced right? How naive you must be to think that everyone that owns a gun have little to no money, and that they all want to kill something. What of those men who pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to kill those exotic animals that are caged for easy prey at those big game ranches down in TX? They have even higher power weapons (you know to kill bigger animals then deer) and yet they must have money to be able to afford that kind of money just to kill an animal. Where, Kay, do you intend to class them at in your little opinion? And you think that all people lower on the economy scale are undereducated (your way of saying stupid I'm sure). Think before you post so naively next time. And most certainly before you decide to attack a certain group of individuals by status, race, or belief without reason. Red Dawn was good btw!

Posted by: Anonymous on Dec 21, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Great idea. Let's create a whole new black market. That's really worked well in the war on drugs.

Posted by: John on Dec 21, 2007 at 02:27 PM
This idea operates under the assumption that making these weapons illegal would make them harder to obtain. It's kind of like the idea that keeping certain drugs illegal makes them harder to obtain. Actually keeping certain drugs illegal only insures that minors have the same access to them as adults. The same would be true with assualt weapons. Let alone the issue of how are you going to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals anyway.

Posted by: Kay on Dec 21, 2007 at 08:20 AM
You need to remember that most gun owners are on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. They twist the 2nd Amendment as the NRA has taught them in order to justify arming themselves in case 'someone comes to get them'. In reality most if not all gun owners revel in the thought of killing something. I'm sure while they're out "target practicing" with their AKs, the gun range owners & gun manufacturers are smiling all the way to the bank. Undereducated access to unnecessary killing weapons = continuing gun deaths of innocents. Way too many Red Dawn wannabes out there!

Posted by: p.t. on Dec 20, 2007 at 09:53 PM
reply to DB: The answers to your questions can be found by studying history. Actually I don't own one, don't plan on it, but I can see the big picture when it comes to taking away rights of the law abiding majority to try to prevent the acts of a few from happening.

Posted by: Misunderstanding on Dec 20, 2007 at 07:14 PM
Logic does not come through in a mind like the cowardly fool who did the shooting at Von Maur, nor the fools involved in any other cowardly act that destroyed the lives of innocent people. They focus their intent on one thing and one thing only, and no matter what's available to them. Whether it be a high power hunting rifle, a car, or a knife. They're going to get it done. Try pulling your laws, lets see how many of the same type of people abide by them? Strange how everyone seems to think that a law in a book is going to stop these wreckless individuals when obviously one of the most important laws in life (cherishing and respecting the lives of others) is something they care little to follow. Believe it or not the coward shooter would have found another object to use as a weapon. And what of the coward's mother? Is she not responsible in some big way? I mean she knew he had taken the gun, and she knew her son's mental instability? Make your laws and see who breaks them.

Posted by: Jose on Dec 20, 2007 at 06:53 PM
I disagree with both Doctor Stothert and Sen. Ashford of Omaha. Instead of blaming the tool blame the man. Hawkins is responsible. he decided to steal the gun, he decided to go to the mall, he decided to pull the trigger. How did that sad, sick man grow up in our society and not develop a kinship with his fellow man? How could he deliberately cause so much pain and anguish? How could we and other's fail to see the despair and loss of faith that led to his terrible acts? Dr Stothert and Senator Ashford's comments are examples of the misplaced focus of our civic leaders. Banning guns fails to fix the real source of the issue, the human being. You will only begin to solve the problem when you fix the human heart. When we removed God from our schools and our daily lives we began to feed this evil. When we look to more laws we avoid the hard work for the "quick fix". It's easier to propose a law than to oppose what we promote in our society that so adversely effects our children.

Posted by: DB on Dec 20, 2007 at 05:42 PM
So, using the logic of most people here, we should be in an uproar because our government does not want us citizens to have chemical weapons, or a big bucket of anthrax. I mean, we have the right to defend ourselves right? I just don't feel like using a little old gun to defend myself, I feel like using some Ricin gas. Or maybe its because our government knows that some things shouldn't be in the hands of the public. And its time these assault rifles are added to the list!

Posted by: DB on Dec 20, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Those silly counter-arguments about how "maybe we should outlaw cars because they can kill people" or "maybe we should outlaw doctor's surgical tools because they can kill people". That doesn't even begin to make sense. Cars have are a useful necessity of life. Surgical tools are needed to save lives. Can somebody please tell me what redeeming qualities an AK47 has besides killing as many people as possible and making one look big and bad? I dare you to find me somebody who (outside of the military) who actually needs an AK47 in their home.

Posted by: Eric on Dec 20, 2007 at 02:11 PM
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." People say "If they didn't have an assault rifle, this wouldn't of happened." That answer in itself is ignorance. A person bent on injuring those around him or herself will do it by one means or another. On 9/11 a hand full of men hijacked two jets with box cutters and forever changed us. Imagine where we would be today if someone on that plane had a gun (licensed, and trained to use it of course.), or the Pilots were allowed to have their pistols in the cockpit. The United States we see today would be a very different place. I do not by any means condone the actions of Mr. Hawkins, in fact it rocked my very core, but ask yourself what would of happened if the security guards at the mall were trained and equipped properly. Many of the people that lost their lives that day may still be with us. Jennifer, I have never met you. But your family is in my thoughts daily. What happened was terrible. A gun didn't kill your aunt, he did.

Posted by: RM on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Maybe State Senator Ashford should pass a law that ensures that weapons violations cant be plea bargained away.Lawyers and prosecuters shouldnt be able to use it as a bargening chip.Max sentence for each violation

Posted by: Win on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Perhaps one of you fine gun proponents can tell us all why the AK-47 was developed & it's primary use today. It was developed to kill PEOPLE. Not deer, not targets - PEOPLE. If you attempt to justify "target practice" as a reason to own an auto or semi-auto, you're making yourself look rather foolish. Most of you secretly want to use it on someone, whether you'll ever admit it or not! Thank God that sometimes the will of the majority is smart enough to regulate the potential dangerous actions of the minority here in the good old USA!

Posted by: Kris on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Jennifer you have my deepest sorrow concerning the loss of your Aunt. Your are right semi automatic and automatic weapons are not for hunting or security they are to kill. They must be destroyed before more people lose their lives.

Posted by: Bill on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:27 AM
You know, every time I hear that "guns don't kill people - people do" I can't help thinking about the logic behind that statement. Yes, the people kill using the gun as a tool, but it is the tool that allows that type of killing to occur. If some magic hit the world and tomorrow there were no power tools, how would we repair roads, build structures, or demolish buildings? On that same note, what would warfare be like without gunpowder? Would we be as willing to go to war if you had to face your opponent hand-to-hand? Picture the Normandy or Iwo Jima invasion with swords and clubs. Even single-shot rifles had limits and forced a reload time. An assault rifle is just a tool, but it has only one purpose and has no place in a community such as ours. When you were a kid and tried to use the power saw, you were told you were too small, and it was for your own safety that it was taken away. Since there is no valid justification for these weapons, I suggest a similar course of action.

Posted by: Jennifer on Dec 20, 2007 at 10:12 AM
My aunt was killed by Robert Hawkins with an AK47 in VonMaur. I am disgusted that anyone tries to justify the right to own a semi-automatic weapon. They are meant to kill people, that is it. They are not useful for hunting and other guns are equally good for target practice. I wish people could show some compassion and rational thought and make sure these semi-automatic weapons were banned except for military and law enforcement. Stop thinking only of yourselves, and think of the people who could be saved by us preventing evil or mentally ill people from getting these weapons. People have a right to hunt and protect themselves, but these semi-automatic weapons are not required for either! My aunt was one of the last people killed in customer service and I feel stronly that she would be alive right now if Mr. Hawkins did not have that AK47. With another less powerful gun that took longer to aim and fire, he could have been stopped sooner and the damage would have been less!

Posted by: mjm on Dec 20, 2007 at 09:12 AM
Dave.... And thats why we need to ban certain weapons, and perform backgound checks, because they end up in the hands of whacko's. Don't blame the public, blame the whacko that ruins it for the rest of you necks.

Posted by: benEzra on Dec 20, 2007 at 09:06 AM
I can't believe how many responders here think the issue is about automatic weapons. Possession of an automatic weapon outside of police/military duty is already a 10-year Federal felony without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4), and has been for 73 years. A civilian-legal AK lookalike is NOT an automatic weapon, but is identical in every way to a Ruger Mini Thirty short-range deer rifle, and doesn't fire any faster. BTW, like most gun owners, I am a nonhunter; my "AK" (2002 model SAR-1) is my primary target and competition rifle, though it is perfectly legal for hunting as long as you use a 5-round hunting magazine.

Posted by: Rural on Dec 20, 2007 at 09:04 AM
The doctor’s argument that the rifle used in the assault was "very high velocity" is not relevant to the issue. Average everyday hunting rifles have higher velocities than this particular firearm. Gun control laws are a proven failure. Why? Because criminals could care less about what the government says. The only obvious reason for gun control is the disarmament of all citizens. Can anyone name one gun control law that has saved one innocent life?

Posted by: Tony on Dec 20, 2007 at 09:04 AM
Wasn't this kid in and out of mental institutions over the last couple of years? Maybe instead of blaming the weapon, we should blame the people that allowed him to remain the general population. Yes these weapons are meant to kill. Sport shooting is just practicing in case you ever have to kill. Sometimes, unfortunately in this world we live in, it is our RIGHT to kill.

Posted by: Disappointed on Dec 20, 2007 at 08:54 AM
I wonder if this doctor has seen what an SKS does to a deer (or any living thing)? They don't do much more damage than a .243 rifle used for deer hunting. You cannot ban only certain guns because then their will be crazy people out their who will all of a sudden find those guns extremely appealing & there they go to the black market again. Trying to ban these guns will most likely only cause more crime. People need to be responsible for their belongings & keep their gun cabinets locked if not in use. How hard is it to turn a key? Though I am deeply saddened about this whole situation, trying to take away someones right to own guns or to ban certain guns will not stop the problem. The problem needs to be stopped at home. I completely agree with bill, Walter, & Ryan. As a proud gun owner I am certainly not willing to give up my right to own any kind of gun. Unfortunately the bad guys have them too. Always remember: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE...PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. God Bless thru the Holidays!

Posted by: Dave on Dec 20, 2007 at 08:38 AM
Go to a local hunting outlet and look at the semi automatic hunting rifles available. These rifles can do the same damage as an "assault rifle". Before everyone starts calling for selected arms to be banned. Research arms banning in England. It started out with just one type of gun and look where it is today. The old adage still hold true today, People kill People -- guns don't.

Posted by: Ryan, again on Dec 20, 2007 at 08:24 AM
Ashford says we need a new ban just like the 1994 - 2004 assault weapons ban to protect us from events like Columbine. Does he even realize that Columbine happened right in the middle of the assault weapons ban? Does he realize that the assault weapons ban had absolutely nothing to do with banning guns based on their function - it just banned them based on arbitrary cosmetic features? Remember, people. We elect senetors, we pay their salaries.

Posted by: p.t. on Dec 20, 2007 at 08:11 AM
Maybe we should ban surgical instruments because a few bad doctors did horrible operations that resulted in a patient's death or permanant disfiguration due to them removing or operating on the wrong part. While this perhaps may not be premeditated murder, the consequences for the victims are the same. According to statistics thousands of people are victims of medical incompetence. So following the logic of this proposed legislation, we need to ban the instruments from all doctors, and then hold the manufacturers and distributors liable for making the "weapons" available to them. Then you would be taking the instruments away from law abiding, highly respected and skilled doctors like Dr. Stothert who save people's lives. I would never want this scenerio to happen! May God bless all the MANY wonderful people in the medical profession who do great work every day!

Posted by: benEzra on Dec 20, 2007 at 08:09 AM
A civilian AK is a *LOW* velocity rifle, even less powerful than a .30-30 Winchester. A .30-06 deer rifle is twice as powerful, firing a much heavier bullet at considerably higher velocity. Civilian AK (7.62x39mm) -- 123-grain bullet at 2350 feet per second. .30-06 deer -- 180-grain bullet at 2700 feet per second. Civilian AK (7.62x39mm) -- 1,495 ft-lb kinetic energy. .30-06 deer rifle -- 2,900 ft-lb kinetic energy. The doctor needs to check his facts before calling for a ban on the most popular small-caliber target rifles and defensive carbines in America, particularly since rifles are so rarely misused. In 2006, all rifles combined accounted for only half as many murders as shoes and bare hands; rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been. benEzra

Posted by: DB on Dec 20, 2007 at 08:01 AM
Medical malpractice kills more people than guns each year?? I'd love to get a look at wherever that statistic came from. But aside from that, I think our society must be allowed to have AK47s. I can't begin to count the number of times I had 15 deer in my sight and wanted to shoot all of them at once. Or the time I had 11 killers breaking into my house...All at the same time. I was glad I had my AK47 that night, I tell you.

Posted by: No Need on Dec 20, 2007 at 07:46 AM
While I agree that the Westroads tragedy and others could not have been prevented by banning guns, I don't see any reason for assault rifles or automatic weapons of any kind to be available to the public. They serve no purpose but to kill and historically, that is just what they are used for. I am all for owning a deer rifle, shotgun, or even handguns for personal protection or for sport, but assault rifles? Banning them - they serve no good except to drug dealers, terrorists, and to collect dust in the gun cabinets of collectors waiting to be stolen.

Posted by: Medical Meestakes on Dec 20, 2007 at 07:44 AM
If we lowered speed limits nationwide to 25mph, we'd save tens of thousands of lives every year. If we got rid of medical mistakes made by doctors, we'd save tens of thousands more.

Posted by: Gary on Dec 20, 2007 at 07:41 AM
Hey Mary: Why don't we take away your car, it kills way more people every year than those evil AK47's. And if a hunter is truley a hunter, he wouldn't empty a whole magazine into an animal. Doesn't matter what weapon you use. My hunting rifle holds 4 rounds, does that mean I need to shoot it 4 times because I can??? Get a life. Keep asking for the politicians to legislate your life. Pretty soon you will be asked for your "papers" just to go from point A to B.

Posted by: T on Dec 20, 2007 at 07:31 AM
We have all heard the saying "Guns do not kill, People with guns KILL" I agree with Walter. Why put more laws into place when the ones we have are not working. That guns was not proplerly stored, if it was able to be stolen. And another point, the law being put into place only punishes the ones that actually follow the rules. The rule breakers might not even know they are breaking the rules, because they don't pay attention to the rules. Meaning... they don't watch or read the news. If they are stupid enough to think of the plan, "They" might just be smart enough to get away with it. And agreed with the parenting skills.

Posted by: citizen on Dec 20, 2007 at 07:08 AM
Fahey and Warren already refuse to allow people to defend themselves. They are just elitists. Perhaps a police chief and department that actually did police work instead of looking for that national attention.

Posted by: Mary on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:47 AM
You don't need an AK-47 to hunt unless you want shredded meat. Keep the shotguns and rifles. Let the hunters hunt, but ban the assault weapons. Those are for war.

Posted by: bill on Dec 19, 2007 at 11:54 PM
while I am sorry that this shooting happened I dont think banning these weapons is the answer it could have been just a handgun. We cant blame the guns its careless people that dont keep them locked up and idiots who get ahold of them that should be blamed. Everytime something bad happens with guns people want to ban them there are law abidding people that are being punished and criminals will still get them when they want one. Again Im very sorry and feel as bad as everyone else does and I donated money to the fund.

Posted by: Walter on Dec 19, 2007 at 11:52 PM
While I am deeply saddened by the tragic events at West Roads, I am also very disturbed at societies inability to deal with the root cause to the events that unfold around us every day. We would rather point fingers and make new laws banning inanimate objects than deal with the crumbling of our foundations as a society. Parenting, Family, Faith, Accountability, Education, Respect, Community, Values, Equality, and the list goes on. These are the things we must address, Not the guns, drugs, alchohol, etc. There are far to many laws to control these items now that do not work, why make more? Is it up to politicians to raise our children? Is it up to Law Enforcement and National Guard to be at our side 24/7? The ugly truth is that it is up to you. We must make those painful changes here at home and in our everyday lives. The answers are not easy ones and can not be solved with a new bill or law, only people realizing that they must make changes starting at home will we begin to heal.

Posted by: Ryan on Dec 19, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Ballisticly the 7.62x39 round (fired by the AK47, SKS, & variants) is similar to the 30.30 used by thousands of deer hunters in this state. Should they be banned also? There is absolutely no similarity between the weapon used at Westroads and the weapons used by the Columbine shooters. At Columbine there were several shotguns, a 9mm carbine, and a 9mm pistol. If Dr. Stothert believes firearms should be banned, he should come out and say so. There is no reason to suggest that certain guns are worse than others. They are all inanimate objects. Cars, alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and medical malpractice have all been shown to kill far more people each year than firearms.

Media Partners