Police: 9 shot at Tenn. nightclub Christmas party

[proud2BlibKansan]

Authorities say nine people were shot when a fight broke out at a Chattanooga nightclub, where some 400 teens and adults were attending a Christmas party. Police say all those shot are expected to survive.

Chattanooga police said in a press release Sunday morning that an off-duty officer who had been working at Club Fathom fired shots at a suspect who pointed a gun at him, but the gunman got away. The officer was not wounded.

Police Chief Bobby Dodd tells WTVC-TV ( http://bit.ly/tXuRXb) that a fight broke out at the club around midnight.

No arrests have been made, and it was not immediately known how the fight started.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/25/3337511/police-9-shot-at-tenn-nightclub.html#storylink=cpy

[IamK]

1. Merry Christmas...

[Tennessee ploughboy]

2. shootings and racism in chattanooga

for an eye opening view into the state of race relations in chattanooga, tn, instead of the link given by proud2blibkansan, got to www.timesfreepress.com (chattanooga times-free press), read the article and then be sure to read the comments. if you doubt that racism is alive and well in chattanooga, TN, the comments will disabuse you of any such notions. -TPB-

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Yes the racists come out of the woodwork here too

Our paper usually closes comments for local crime stories. But we have an African American columnist who really gets racist comments. It's disturbing.

[DeathToTheOil]

60. There are racists in Alberta, too

No state, country, province or region has a monopoly on idiocy.

[Remmah2]

72. Racist in Rome, Bosnia, Iraq, Germany, China, Japan, Russia.

It goes back a century or two or three, but is just as significant today.

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. Monopoly, no.

Strong ass market position? That's another matter, innit?

[win_in_06]

11. You can go to Bossip.com and see the same type of comments.

Stupid behavior is color-blind.

[sarcasmo]

4. America, get in a fight and get shot

USA


USA



USA

[Odin2005]

90. Europe, get into a fight and get stabbed to death.

[Deep13]

5. Just to be clear, a cop shot 9 people...

The article is sketchy on details, but I have to think that shots 2-9 happened after the guy turned to flea since he "got away."

[Skip Intro]

33. Just to be clear - you have zero proof of that claim. nt

[Deep13]

48. I'm relying on the article.

It says the cop saw a suspect point a gun at him and that the cop then shot at the suspect. The only person the article says did any shooting was the cop. It also says it happened in a crowded tavern. While the cop had a right to defend himself, he did not have a right to shoot into a crowd or to keep shooting after the threat ended. Also, the article also says nine people were shot. We don't know how many rounds were actually fired.

[Starboard Tack]

35. Who turned into a flea? A cop?

[Skittles]

45. naw

the cop fleaed the scene

[Deep13]

47. Yes, I just hope he was not carrying plague germs. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

53. Just to be clear, no he didn't

It was two rival gangs fighting, and one of them shot into the crowd...

http://www.newschannel9.com/articles/dodd-1007601-says-police.html

According to officers on scene at the time of the shootings, a group of about 400 teenagers were leaving a party at Fathom when two rival gangs met up and began to fight. Someone from one of the gangs pulled a gun and began firing indiscriminately into the crowd. A second suspect from the opposing gang fired back. In the process, nine victims were hit. As officers on-scene tried to identify the shooters, a suspect pointed his gun at Officer Jacques Weary. Officer Weary then fired four times at the suspect who was able to escape during the melee. Police have not identified the suspect nor have they determined if he was hit. Officer Weary wasn’t injured in the incident. He has been placed on administrative leave which is standard in any officer-involved shooting. The Chattanooga Police Department Internal Affairs Division will conduct a parallel investigation with the Major Crimes Division into Officer Weary’s shooting.

[Deep13]

66. I see. The article was pretty sloppy, then.

I guess I should not be surprised.

[Skip Intro]

71. So were some of the initial replies here.

The bad guys turn out to be the thugs, not the cops. And DU outrage wanes.

[slackmaster]

6. 'Tis the Season!

I'm staying home today.

[jimlup]

7. I know that opposition to hand guns is not uniform here but honestly -

How many more times does this have to happen????

I mean this isn't 1776 - the 2nd Amendment just doesn't apply anymore folks. Sorry...

[dmallind]

9. Well clearly this is true

I mean with this level of historical acumen and insight it must be:

I mean this isn't 1776 - the 2nd Amendment just doesn't apply anymore folks. Sorry...

[PavePusher]

10. "just doesn't apply anymore"

Based on what justification?

[jimlup]

15. What are you going to use to "form a well organized militia? By an A-bomb?"

I mean really - things just ain't what they used to be. We live in a very different world today.

We don't have to go hunting for food. We can't defend ourselves and our property against government intervention (did you see Wacko on the news? I mean really it just doesn't go down like a person or even a group can stand against the forces of the government.)

I'm actually somewhat surprised that some people here are so dogmatic about this issue. I do know however that there are many here who feel like I do - guns just don't apply like they did even 100 years ago. They just don't. I society of 300 million just isn't the same as the society for which the 2nd amendment was written. I'm amazed that people are so ignorant and or (apparently) unable to accept this obvious fact.

[PavePusher]

16. And yet you still can't support...

your obvious opinion.

Apparently your knowledge of warfare, insurgency, law, history and fact is not up to the task. Good luck with that.

[Johnson20]

19. Perhaps you meant "...well regulated,"

not "well organized." Very different meanings historically. Also you may wish to read Dist. of Columbia v Heller (2008).

[jimlup]

23. you are just picking nits ...

I knew I didn't recall it directly but I assume you got my point.

[LanternWaste]

87. Nits are much easier targets than a collective ethical behavior...

Nits are much easier targets than a collective ethical behavior...

[TheWraith]

67. Actually, "well organized" would accurately reflect the original meaning.

In the vernacular of the 1700s, "well regulated" meant fully functional and properly operating.

[slackmaster]

20. I see a whole lot of straw flying in the breeze

What are you going to use to "form a well organized militia? By an A-bomb?"

It's not clear to me who or what you are quoting here. Please explain.

We don't have to go hunting for food....

But we can.

We can't defend ourselves and our property against government intervention...

But we can defend ourselves against non-government attackers, i.e. criminals. The security of a free state includes the security of every individual, every family, every home within the state.

...guns just don't apply like they did even 100 years ago.

Yet people use them for self-defense and other lawful, legitimate purposes every day.

If you don't like guns then don't buy one. You can even ban them from your own home. But please mind your own business.

[jimlup]

24. How many more must die because of our societies

willfully ignorance. Honestly I was (badly apparently - but you did get my point) trying to quote the antiquated 2nd amendment.

We just are not facing an invading army which we could fend off with hand guns nor do we live in the wild west where we have to defend ourselves against crazed outlaws with our Red Rider BB-gun.

We live in a modern society where hand guns have no legitimate place.

I would not criminalize all gun possession but I would outlaw hand guns. And I'm proud of my position and think that lots of sensible people in lots of places agree with me.

[slackmaster]

26. Criticizing something that you can't even quote looks amazingly week as a debate tactic

We live in a modern society where hand guns have no legitimate place.

That fact that people use them for self-defense and other legitimate purposes every day proves that you are wrong.

...I'm proud of my position and think that lots of sensible people in lots of places agree with me.

And many more sensible people like me do not agree with you.

[jimlup]

37. I could look it but honestly

I thought the point of DU was discussion not debate. Jeez... can't even have a conversation. Do you realize how dogmatic and angry you appear? I mean I'm only sharing my belief and you folks are jumping on me as if I'm dueling Republican.

Sorry I disagree with you - and I vote - it is a fact. Deal with it.

[slackmaster]

43. If insisting that we consider the actual 2A when discussing the 2A qualifies as dogmatism

Then I wear the label with pride.

It doesn't say anything about forming a militia, because the militia already existed at the time it was written. That militia still exists.

[PavePusher]

74. They are refuting your ignorant, arrogant claims that you have failed to support with evidence.

That is how both debate and discussion work.

And the only person who appears angry here is... you.

[Hoyt]

31. I agree. 4% who can't venture out of house without a gun or two will whine and argue irrationally.

[IamK]

52. We live in a modern society where hand guns have no legitimate place

good luck passing that law.....

[quickesst]

61. Complete bullshit....

..Apparently you have no idea what it's like to face an intruder into your own home. A hand-gun is what you want.

Here is the bottom line. I don't know if you have a wife, children, grandchildren. I don't know. I do. I have a wife, whom I've been in love with for almost thirty years. I have a son, a daughter in law, and two grandchildren. In case of a break-in, I would rather rely on a decent handgun to protect my family rather than what you deem as "suitable", or acceptable. Stupid. Here is my opinion, like it or not. Most anti-gun people would rather have their loved ones put to death arbitrarily by some low-life piece of shit, than give them a chance to live their lives as it should have been, all for the sake, or privelige of saying I stood up for my anti-violence beliefs. BULLSHIT!!!

"We just are not facing an invading army which we could fend off with hand guns nor do we live in the wild west where we have to defend ourselves against crazed outlaws with our Red Rider BB-gun. "

Who in their right minds relies on a red ryder bb-gun. Get a clue.

This is such dumbass bullshit, I can't belive I'm actually wasting time responding to it. Thanks anyway.
quickesst

[TheWraith]

68. Actually, very very few people agree with you.

Per Gallup, only one in four Americans supports a ban on handguns, a number which has been consistently dropping for more than 50 years straight.

Also, your blanket assertion that handguns have "no legitimate place" is patently wrong on the face of it, since you have completely failed to account for things like self defense and other lawful uses. Your assertion is more like saying that because a VCR can be used to copy movies, it therefore has no legitimate uses.

Not to mention the fact that you have zero evidence a ban on handguns would in any way positively affect violent crime in the US. Some of the most violent cities, like Chicago, have had total bans on not just handguns but firearms of any kind.

[Remmah2]

73. Lots of sensible people do not agree with you. nt

nt

[Starboard Tack]

36. Apparently not all of us live in a different world. We all live in a strange world.

Some guys out there and a few gals, strap'em on each and every day. Not too many of those are hunters or are worried about defending themselves against an oppressive government. They do it because they believe there is a statistically significant chance that, just by walking out of the house, their lives are in danger from fellow citizens. You know, rapists and robbers behind every tree kinda thinking. And, believe it or not, more are carrying guns on a daily basis. They believe it makes them safer. Not invincible, but safer. I think they've been sold a bill of goods to the point that they are delusional. The good thing is, most are honest, law abiding people. The bad thing is, they buy into the fear mongering and, in doing so, contribute to the downward slide of our society.
The great irony is that the "good" guys inadvertently supply the "bad" guys with their guns, because "bad" guys aren't allowed to have them. Part of the rules. So they have to get them from the "good" guys by buying or stealing them.

[sylveste]

49. a society of 300 million

just isn't the same as the society for which all of the bill of rights were written, perhaps we should just shit can 'em all.

[hack89]

51. Then change the Constitution. How hard can it be? nt

[win_in_06]

12. Interestingly enough...

most of the people involved in that incident are likely democratic-leaning so they are pro-gun control, at least by their votes.

[Edweird]

13. Fortunately you don't get to decide which parts of the Bill Of Rights

are applicable.

[jimlup]

17. Well actually I would recend the 2nd Amendment

I honestly would. I also think it would be a sensible political way to proceed. We are deluding ourselves if we think the "Bill of Rights" 10 Amendments are somehow "sacred".

Sure - I'll fight to the death for the 1st but certainly not the 2nd. It is just antiquated. And I know that I'm not alone so I'll just watch you guys who support the 2nd and shake my head in sorrow for the many dead all for the cost of an antiquated idea which applies to a society which doesn't exist in the United States today.

[Edweird]

18. Like I said, I'm glad it's not up to you.

Furthermore, your position is well outside the mainstream and has very little support.

[jimlup]

22. But we do live in a democracy

Or at least we aspire to that though I have my doubts these days.

And I'll say that in time we either will become aware that the 2nd amendment is antiquated or it will essentially become irrelevant. And we will keep losing innocent citizens to this antiquated law the longer we hang on it.

Happy Holidays and I hope that you and yours are always safe from our given right to arm bears.[/]

[Edweird]

25. Yes, we do live in a democracy. You are outvoted on this in a big way.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the facts, as well as votes, are not on your side.

[slackmaster]

27. There is a legitimate Constitutional process for repealing an amendment

It's been done once already. You are free to try to do it again.

[Johnson20]

21. And what would you "fight to the death" with? Scheeeech n/t

[hack89]

29. So start beating the drum for a Consitututional convention.

and see how much political support you get.

[hack89]

28. Gun violence is at a 50 year low and steadily falling

turn off Nancy Grace and relax - you have never been safer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Actually I WISH it was 1776 from a gun ownership standard

You see, MOST PEOPLE, unlike the myths, did NOT OWN a gun. But what about the West? Gun ownership did not see a significant uptick UNTIL the mid 20th century when they became cheap and ammo became cheap as well.

The few that did, did not go and shoot it with abandon... ammo WAS expensive back then. Ownership was slightly higher in the fronter, and concealing a Kentucky rifle is not easy.

Oh and the people who WROTE that amendment meant the second part as well, you know the militia part. These days that be the NATIONAL GUARD.

[slackmaster]

34. That statement might have some credibility if you had a legitimate source to back it up.

You see, MOST PEOPLE, unlike the myths, did NOT OWN a gun.

A source other than Michael Bellesiles' discredited book.

Most people were farmers in 1776. Farmers have owned and used firearms for as long as they have been available.

The National Guard is only one component of the militia. The unorganized militia is much larger, and has always consisted of the population in general.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

38. Funny thing here on DU, the gun rights people act more like lawyers,

wanting exact facts and statistics from the opposition, while claiming that they are the ones that have exact facts and statistics to back up their positions.
Why can't they admit that they were probably conditioned as children to play with guns and simply put, now probably get off shooting them?
Why can't they simply admit that guns are dangerous and in our culture there are plenty of people who shouldn't own one?
Oh, and just to be clear, am I saying that all guns should be turned in? No I'm not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Sorry but that is a historical fact

drawn from analysis of things like WILLS.

Have a good day.

[slackmaster]

44. Clayton Cramer has done some actual research on the topic

It even has footnotes and verifiable references.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/unpublished/ArmingAmericaLong.pdf

BTW, I own several valuable items, including firearms, which I inherited from my father. None of them were mentioned in his will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. So you are telling me that everybody had a Kentucky Riffle

that includes Indentured servants and SLAVES? (I'd better NOT look at primary sources that made even handling of these tools a hanging offense, UNLESS their master was by them supervising them carefully, why during the War Washington's aide, his slave, never had a weapon on him)

And that everybody went shooting every weekend? I mean it is not like they could go buy those rounds, and at many a times had to MELT them themselves and actually did their best to recover EVERY LEAD ball fired out of those?

You are telling me that all those PRIMARY sources are wrong and that the Kentucky was mass produced.

You are also telling me that everybody owned a Colt? I mean it was close to a month's salary, and the rounds... oh my they were all but cheap, why the Army had a practice of THREE rounds a year... or were those primary sources wrong too?

M'kay.

There is a reason why ownership EXPLODED by mid 20th century... this is a provable fact. It has all to do with mass production, in particular of ammo, which is proportionally, the cheapest it's ever been. Or are you melting still your own lead balls? Don't forget the wadding though when you tap them down ok.

[slackmaster]

75. No, I'm telling you that even a single anecdote outweighs your unsupported claim...

...that gun ownership was rare in colonial America.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Unsoported ok

I guess all those primary sources are wrong.

Good to know.

It is easier to create myths than actually do real history.

I get it, this is dogma... and like any religious believe... it cannot be questioned... and yes, IT IS a religion in this country.

[slackmaster]

80. You've referred twice to "primary sources" in this sub-thread but haven't named one yet

Why is that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Go look at any painting of the AID to General Washingon

That is a primary source

The ARMY NOT SHOOTING OFF more than there rounds per year in the Frontier is a primary source

The Papers of Northern Virginia is a primary source

The fact that 1\3 of the population at independence were either INDENTURED or descendants is well known

The fact that in some colonies, see Virginia, at one point the majority of the population were African slaves and indentured slaves is a well known fact

The fact that they feared such unrest that they forbid them having weapons is a well known fact, (and not unfounded given the events of the 1670s)

Sorry... I will take all those data points over the myth that Hollywood has created.

[slackmaster]

83. A nation in which a large portion of the population is banned from owning guns or anything else

That's what you'd like us to go back to?

Freedom includes the freedom for people to own, say, and do things that you don't like.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. Thanks for twisting what I said

I just said that the Colonial period was not awash with guns, as Hollywood has told you. Neither was the wild west. In fact, GUN CONTROL was pretty pervasive in Western Towns.

This level of ownership started truly at mid 20th century or so. Not only that, the NRA USED to be rational about these things... not any more. At this point they even oppose background checks for criminals and those who are mentally ill... as they say something went really wrong at NRA. And it is because it became a religion, and left policy about 20 years ago.

Oh and there are good and very valid reasons why GUNS are as cheap as they are today.

[Straw Man]

89. Simply not true.

[div class = excerpt]Not only that, the NRA USED to be rational about these things... not any more. At this point they even oppose background checks for criminals and those who are mentally ill...
The NICS check system, instituted as part of the Brady Bill, was supported by the NRA, and they continue to support it. Yes, they often endorse odious candidates, but that does not justify misrepresenting their positions on issues of public safety.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. That is why I get NRA email blasts

tearing the brady bill a new one every month or so?

I actually get both sides these days... there is humor in them.

[Hoyt]

62. According to your links, all gunners over 45 years of age need to turn in your guns.

[slackmaster]

76. I don't follow your logic

Maybe there isn't any.

[Hoyt]

78. You obviously didn't read your own link that said the "militia" includes people UNDER 45.

Since a number of the pro-gun culture devotees here have used the same quote to argue ineffectively that the "militia" reference in the Second Amendment doesn't mean doodly, then those over 45 need to turn in their weapons.

I know there is little chance of that because for the pro-gun crowd here the thought of going gunless in public is mortifying.

Since you didn't look at the link, here it is:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Any more questions I can help you with.

[slackmaster]

81. Nothing in the Constitution or the law makes militia membership a pre-requisite for owning a gun

Your logic is flawed.

[Hoyt]

85. So, Second Amendment mention nothing about "militia." So why did you post link in first place?

You guys need to get your stories straight. I hope all the 45+ year olds are prepared to turn their guns in based upon your (and others) links to definition of "militia."

[slackmaster]

86. No, it says that the militia is important, and that an armed populace is a prerequisite...

...for a properly functioning militia.

HTH

I hope all the 45+ year olds are prepared to turn their guns...

Turn them in to whom? Do you understand the concept of ownership of private, personal property?

[ellisonz]

56. +1000

[JI7]

40. i agree, there are far more powerful weapons today, should people have access to drones to defend a

against govt ?

[ellisonz]

57. I don't feel safe in my home...

...without dozen jury-rigged claymore mines to protect my unsecured 100 gun collection and 10,000 rounds of ammunition. My home is my castle and I'll be damned if I let some Federal Government come and take me away from my guns. I therefore need the claymores to defend myself from tyranny.

[TheWraith]

69. If you can't debate without inventing a strawman argument...

Then why should anyone take your position seriously? You yourself apparently don't think you have enough evidence to argue in favor of it without having to create a totally imaginary position that no one has ever actually held in order to attack it.

[ellisonz]

70. It's called sarcasm. I'll engage in serious debate when it's offered.

Please, go to the Gungeon and post that you're in favor of gun control because things are getting out of hand. See what response you get.

Also - please google man arrested on gun explosive charges - you'll find my description isn't that far-fetched of some gun owners:

Updated: 9:05 PM Aug 24, 2010
Gun Hoarder Arrested for Grenade Possession
http://www.wifr.com/news/headlines/101423969.html

Posted: 12/19/2011 09:33:26 AM PST
Santa Clara: Man arrested for firing gun inside house, having homemade explosives
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_19578599

Updated: Sunday, 08 Feb 2009, 7:43 PM EST
Published : Sunday, 08 Feb 2009, 7:43 PM EST
Man faces weapons, explosive charges
Worcester man faces weapons charges
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/wwlp_massachusetts_man_faces_weapons_charges_200902081945

They should upgrade the DSM to cover weapon stockpiling as a classification within compulsive hoarding.

[teach1st]

8. The comments are typical of most

The comments on the story at timesfreepress.com are typical of many metro news sites that allow comments. Anonymity and idiocy don't mix well. I never understand the "where are they now" type comments ("Where is Jesse Jackson?" and "where is the (local group or politician)?" )

[NashVegas]

14. Nashville's Paper Moved to Facebook, It Got So Bad

I think it demonstrates why, before the internets, this paper used to publish the full name and address of written-letter comments. There is a streak of mean + cowardice that exists here; people want to be free to be assholes as long as they aren't held to account for it.

[Posteritatis]

41. Has it helped?

I've seen a few other papers do that, but usually avoid news-article comments because they make me want to stab the entire world. If the civility level's closer to a typical LTTE page, on the other hand...

[NashVegas]

77. Yes, Kind Of

But it's a LOT quieter.

The trouble with eliminating all the asshole comments is that it also eliminated many of the well-informed flames.

[rhett o rick]

32. Let me get this straight. An off duty police officer shot 9 people claiming he saw a gun? Yikes.

Some people shouldnt be carrying a gun.

[SoapBox]

39. Merry Christmas NRA!

...I'm sure that you got what you wished for...people using guns...guns, guns, guns, more guns.

What a mess all those guns have created.

[uncleroy]

46. have you heard these?

"it s better to have a gun and never need it, than need a gun, and don t have it..."
"when guns are outlawed; only outlaws will have guns..."
how about, "gun control means hitting the bullseye 9 out of 10 times from 100 yards..."
look, i m not trying to argue the 2nd ammendment all over again; but you should know that those of us who are legal, responsible gun owners feel that ALL of (y)our rights, not just the ammendments, exist because of firearms...and a willingness to use them if necessary to retain those rights...sure, bad people do bad things to each other, but do you blame a rock when somebody gets their head bashed in? do you blame the gun if some kid robs you? not rightfully, if so...think about trying to make a difference in education and culture wherever you are, instead of blaming what, after all, is ubiquitous and neutral- that trigger don t pull itself!

[ellisonz]

58. Enjoy.

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

“An armed society is a polite society.”

Who hasn’t heard these engaging assertions, time and time again? Burned into the national consciousness by years of targeted, disciplined messaging by the National Rifle Association and others, they are just a few of the bumper-sticker slogans that have defined the gun control debate in America. Long ridiculed by gun control advocates, they are the first words that come to mind for most Americans when the gun issue is discussed.

This is the first book both to acknowledge the profound and deadly impact of the gun lobby’s bumper-sticker logic on the gun control debate and to systematically expose the misguided thinking at the core of the pro-gun slogans. Indeed, the author contends that the gun lobby’s remarkable success in blocking passage of lifesaving gun laws is the result, in large part, of its relentless and effective use of these simple and resonant messages. Their persuasive power has been a largely ignored influence on the current politics of gun control, in which the gun lobby wields unprecedented power in the Republican Party, while many Democratic Party leaders see the policy benefits of stronger gun laws as not worth the political risk of standing up to the NRA. The book contends that the current political stalemate over guns will never be broken until the pro-gun slogans are exposed as the cleverly disguised fallacies that they are.

http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Logic-Exploding-Paralyze-American/dp/B002YX0FCO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324893259&sr=8-1

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Danke, some light reading in between Zizek's books!

One turn deserves another...

Violence

http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Ideas-Small-Books-ebook/dp/B003N2PEAS/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1324921807&sr=1-1

[hack89]

50. Mess = historically low levels of violent crime? You have never been safer. nt

[ellisonz]

59. Could be safer...nt

[hack89]

63. Sure - sane drug laws and fully funded mental health are still needed to lower the level of violence

in America.

[Gringostan]

54. How sad...

How sad – could we not have just one night of peace…

[Politicalboi]

55. This is bad, but this is worse

Police: 7 found dead in Texas apartment



http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/25/justice/texas-deaths/index.html