Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

Comment Archives: stories: News: Local News: Last 30 Days

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Laurie Works,

First, homicides with firearms have been decreasing for good while now. If we wish to further reduce these deaths, we need to 1) enforce the laws we have, 2) address the root causes of violence, 3) quit blaming the object used, and 4) quit placing extra burdens/restrictions on the law abiding.

We have a LOT of firearm laws regarding how they can be used, who can possess, how to purchase, etc. These laws exist at the federal, state, and local levels and often they are redundant. Far too often violations of these laws are either not charged, plea-bargained away, or prosecuted at the lowest and least penalizing level of government. We need to turn that around. This has been shown to work under initiatives such as Project Exile.

Firearms do not cause someone to be violent. People are violent because they feel it is their right, because they are angry, because they are mentally ill, and because society teaches us that violence is not only correct, but laudable and even expected. We need to change the message so that people understand violence is not correct, that we should never resort to violence to address personal issues, that people who do resort to violence for personal issues are abhorrent, and we need to make it easier to get people the mental health evaluations and care they need. We need to focus on underlying causes such as lack of education, bad economic situations, our societal ethics, and the glorification of violence.

When we focus on the object, we divert the focus away from the causes and we actually imply that the violence is OK, because the object is at fault. These object oriented approaches almost always fail, be it Prohibition, the War on Drugs, or gun control. If the object truly was the problem, then we would expect to see a heck of a lot more than 0.002% of them being misused.

Passing extra laws which only restrict the law abiding have extremely limited, if any effect regarding the misuse of firearms. All these laws serve to do is to give some people a false sense of having accomplished something, hence the name "feel good laws", and to cause anxiety and anguish among others, further dividing the conversation.

Sadly, items 3 & 4 are exactly what we have been doing for the last 80 years and people keep calling for more of them despite 80 years of proof that these measures do not work.

Posted by Odin on 10/12/2015 at 12:42 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Educate yourself, Rocky. She had not worked in law enforcement for a decade and that was in a different state with different rules. Yes, this kind of training is perishable. She volunteered to act as security THE DAY OFF the shooting and had attended no special training for that position. So yes, she was some bumpkin with a pistol.

Posted by Odin on 10/12/2015 at 12:23 PM

Re: “Welcome to Cannabis County, Colorado

Great read.

Posted by Paul Quence Merritt on 10/11/2015 at 11:43 AM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

I am not interested in banning conceal carry. I'm interesting in dialoguing and taking personal responsibility, whether you are for OR against concealed carry. My letter is not about specific actions to be taken, mainly. It's mainly about opening a dialogue so we can constructively change whatever is leading to mass shootings in this country. Continue to argue on facts if you must, but real change is made through constructively dialoguing forward on how we can stop the problem of gun violence in our country.
And again let me be clear. By stop, I have no particular method in mind. I have a discussion in mind that takes into account all aspects of this issue. Let's put down the defensiveness and actually dialogue instead of continuing the polarization so rampant in this issue.
-Laurie Works

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Laurie Works on 10/10/2015 at 9:39 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Ba wa ha ha ha Odin Read any story on the same shooting they all say the same. Trained SECURITY not some bumpkin with a pistol. PERIOD

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Rocky Smith on 10/10/2015 at 6:41 AM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Well first off while Snopes usually does a decent job, it is a Mom & Pop outfit and I have corrected their info on several occasions. Second, Assam clearly was NOT a member of the force at the time of the shooting -- and that is the only thing in the Snopes piece which does not reinforce what I have stated. In fact she had not even lived in the city where she had been a cop in quite a while. She also asserts that she killed the gunman and insisted on that fact even after all the evidence showed that she did not. Add in that she was dismissed from the police force for lying.

Try again, Rocky.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Odin on 10/09/2015 at 3:39 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'


1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Rocky Smith on 10/09/2015 at 3:18 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Oh, and Rocky, she was not fired from the church. She was not employed by the church. She claims she was asked to stop ATTENDING church because she is gay -- nothing to do with being fired.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Odin on 10/09/2015 at 2:36 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

She was a police officer for about 3 years who was dismissed from the force 10 years prior to the church shooting. IOW, she had less training than most people with concealed carry permits. The day of the shooting, she and a couple others who had concealed carry permits went to the staff and told them they were volunteering to act as security. The staff agreed. Another person with a concealed carry permit acting as volunteer security actually saw the gunman before she did and was shot by him. So she really wasn't "staff" at the time of the shooting. The NRA has supported many realistic laws. In fact the NRA's willingness to compromise has caused much consternation among gun owners and led to the creation of many other more staunch pro-gun/pro-Second Amendment groups.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Odin on 10/09/2015 at 1:44 PM

Re: “Throwing flames

When did he "come under fire from his Board" for how he handled the fire? Citations?

Posted by Mike Randall on 10/08/2015 at 9:26 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Well Odin Security staff is still security staff not some bumpkin with a pistol hidden in his pocket as you make it out to be. She was a trained Police officer before that. Objective word TRAINED read the news reports. Yes we all want REALISTIC REGULATIONS. Thats the whole point but with NRA and several other organizations spending untold amounts of money to defeat them were stuck with stupid regulations. For some odd reason banning stupidity is against our rights.

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Rocky Smith on 10/08/2015 at 5:46 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

"She goes on to say that she hopes Congress will consider gun laws in a similarly thoughtful manner — not banning guns, but putting realistic checks and balances in place to protect families like hers."

The key being realistic. They need to be enforceable, effective, feasible, not infringe rights, not put a burden on the law abiding. Unlike dumb laws like magazine capacities, universal background checks, etc.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Odin on 10/08/2015 at 10:07 AM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Rocky and TruB she was a volunteer who had a concealed carry permit, not a paid security officer.

Furthermore, TruB, there is no ban on the CDC doing research -- even staunch gun control supporters like Garen Wintemute have admitted that. You are simply repeating falso claims made by gun controllers. Additionally, most of the studies used by the gun control lobby have been discredited. As for a McCarthy era list -- that was what the gun control lobby was pushing for when they passed the GCA of 1968 and the Brady Act which established that the adjudicated mentally ill are prohibited persons and that they should show up on background checks. And if firearms have only one purpose -- to kill -- then I misused mine about 500 times last month. No if they had only one purpose, we would be talking about millions of deaths a year - so go blow smoke up someone else's butt.

7 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Odin on 10/08/2015 at 9:58 AM

Re: “Pastor blaster

I must be missing where a flyer or a Mr. Pace mentioned or depicted. I have noticed a whole 200 Republicans that are now against Klingenschmidt. Notice the republican party didn't do much speaking against him when he was running for a seat. Sounds more like a publicity stunt from a group renaming themselves Colorado Government Watch. All this talk about bob gardner, who isn't in office, sounds like a smoke screen for DeDe Laugesen's involvement.

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by TruB on 10/07/2015 at 9:58 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Ryan White should read up on the facts before telling someone they failed. The gunman was shot by a church female security officer. That would be open carry armed guard.

It is time to realize how the gun lobby has feed gun owner's paranoia while skewing the data from the way in which statistics are collected to preventing studies on gun violence. Several studies used by the Gun Lobby have been discredited by peer review however still used as references. The gun lobby has even made sure to scrub wikipedia and even banned the CDC from conducting studies by continuing to claim that the studies were intended to promote gun control.

Now the gun lobby pushes that the problem is entirely mental illness and that there is nothing to do other than buy more guns. The gun lobby push is that anyone who hasn't gotten their concealed carry a soft target just waiting to be a victim.

Something does need to change. Pro gun people don't want their guns tracked and would rather try a McCarthy era list of those seen unfit or mentally ill. This is why the argument is always that the gun did nothing. They forget that this particular tool has only one purpose - to kill.

4 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by TruB on 10/07/2015 at 9:28 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Ryan she was paid security officer. She was fired later supposedly because she was gay.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Rocky Smith on 10/07/2015 at 5:41 PM

Re: “Old St. Francis: Bargain or an albatross?

The DDA will spend $300K of their City TIF dollars to update the Imagine Downtown Master Plan. Is this in addition to the mayor's budget request of $500K to update the City's Comprehensive Plan? If so, that's close to $1M for new plans to supplant the series of previous plans now considered to be outdated and useless.

Paraphrase from Liberty's link: City revenues diverted to TIF and other taxpayer subsidies of his developments is how Nor’wood has done so well and how our roads and stormwater don’t ever seem to get enough money and our City government doesn’t ever seem to get enough OUR money.

Posted by curious on 10/07/2015 at 5:08 PM

Re: “'Sincerely, a mass shooting survivor'

Omitted that a conceal carry permit holder is the one who ended the killing and prevented more lives lost. You get a FAIL J. Adrian Stanley

7 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Ryan White on 10/07/2015 at 4:26 PM

Re: “Old St. Francis: Bargain or an albatross?

There is good reason for this assessment. First: Jenkins' property tax bill is lower. Second, since he convinced City Council to include the property in the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), any rise in property tax (once developed) will NOT GO TO THE GENERAL FUND. Instead, as a TIF, the increases will go to the DDA where Jenkins is a Board Member and any dollars the DDA collects as TIF can be used on anything in the DDA masterplan (which is being updated with $300,000 in diverted City tax revenue).

More here:…

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Liberty for COS on 10/07/2015 at 3:19 PM

Re: “Animal control steps up leash-law enforcement

I am disgusted with people these days! I hike a trail twice a week and once in a while there is a dog on a leash. There is so much dog crap on and along the trial it's ridiculous and it stinks terribly. Then you have those people that put it in a bag and leave it. I just don't get people. If your going to have a dog then you need to be responsible. Also I have dogs nearly trip me up because they weren't on a leash and running wild. I've seen other people get chased by dogs and tripped up as well. Some people are scared of dogs too. That's not me, I just think people should be more responsible. There's a sign stating that dogs MUST be on a leash and YOU MUST pick up after your dog. I'm sure that all of this dog crap is not good for our water and environment.

Posted by Marsha, Marsha, Marsha on 10/05/2015 at 1:02 PM

All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation