search
top

Source of the Chardon Shooter’s Gun

The gun was his grandfathers, and he stole it. The grandfather noticed it was missing from his barn after the shooting and believes it’s the same one. It’s a Ruger Mk. III target pistol, which is probably one of the most commonly owned pistols out there. I own two, one Mk. III and the previous Mk. II generation.

I’ve noticed that chatter from the gun control crowd has been very light today. You almost have to wonder if they are disappointed it wasn’t something they could paint as a high-power bullet spraying death machine. Or, perhaps they are merely tired. Two days of exploiting tragedy for political gain can take a lot out of you.

38 Responses to “Source of the Chardon Shooter’s Gun”

  1. Two days of exploiting tragedy for political gain can take a lot out of you.

    The soul, apparently.

  2. Sigivald says:

    I’m surprised they haven’t tried to call it “high powered” anyway.

    Never stopped anyone before.

    • dave ki says:

      Hear that sig but it has that word semi-auto that any anti will run with for all it’s worth.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    Note than nothing short of door-to-door confiscation or the kind of safe-storage laws ruled unconstitutional in Heller would have prevented the accused shooter from acquiring this weapon; and that no state or DC restricts ownership of this weapon.

    • I’ll support a safe storage law, so long as the government provides me with a nice safe – preferably a 24 gun safe.

      :-)

    • Does anyone really think door to door confiscation would find every old .22 in every grandpa’s barn? Canada’s long gun registry never had more than a 30% compliance rate or so.

      So I doubt even door to door confiscation would do the trick, although though certain anti-gun activists might wet themselves with glee.

  4. MAJ Mike says:

    Exhausted? Yup. Dancing in the victims’ blood will suck the energy right out of you.

    The kid was pi$$ed about something and he was determined to hurt someone.

  5. Patrick says:

    A Ruger Mark III you say? Per the article:

    “…The gun, a .22 caliber ***revolver***, was noticed as missing…”

    (Emphasis added by me)

    Layers of editorial oversight strikes again!

  6. mike says:

    I’ll bet he was on antidepressants – like every other school shooter:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A

    But don’t worry, the feds say these drugs only turn 4% of kids into killers:
    http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/child-and-adolescent-mental-health/antidepressant-medications-for-children-and-adolescents-information-for-parents-and-caregivers.shtml

    Even POS extraordinaire Michael Moore agrees:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04UqzYOdGNs

    All conjecture at this point, but it’s been the case every time I can think of so far.

    • Unfortunately, antidepressants improve the mood of severely depressed people enough that they can now plan and organize suicide. What’s the alternative?

      One alternative might be a society where bullying is not accepted. But that would require a society that thinks about something besides one’s own gratification.

      • mike says:

        Bullying isn’t new. Kids shooting up their schools is. I’ll be very surprised if this kid wasn’t on antidepressants like every virtually other school shooter.

        • Bullying isn’t new. (I speak from personal experience.) The difference is that none of us that were the victims of bullies would have even considered killing our tormentors. It was simply not something we could have imagined. We grew up in a different culture.

          • mike says:

            We grew up without being pumped with psychotropic drugs. Name a school shooting, and I’ll name a kid either taking antidepressants, or recently coming off of them (ie withdrawal). Google is your friend.

            Let’s start at the beginning:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSZ9YTnSkLc

            • Sigivald says:

              A YouTube video is not a useful source for anything but a recording of media.

              Also, your history is a little weak.

              (Especially note the 1970s, where we see kids trying to kill as many as possible… and too early for modern antidepressants to be plausible as explanations.

              And it is not a compelling explanation for the continual theme we see of “hunting down the bully”, either.

              Sorry, your “this is the one cause of everything” theory, like all such, fails.)

              • mike says:

                Your link shows an explosion of school shootings starting in the 90s which, if anything, supports what I’m saying. I don’t think the drugs cause everything, but I do think they’re a factor that should be considered. Drugs that don’t work better than a placebo for all but the most severe cases of depression, yet increase violent thoughts (and actions) in children and distort their perceptions of reality, oh AND happen to have been coursing through the veins of most school shooters in the past few decades.. Yeah, perhaps it’s time to take a look.

          • Zermoid says:

            That and we were able to have a good ole fist fight to settle differences. Now they get they get thrown out of school for saying something unkind.

            And the hatred just builds up to the point where they snap (and the drugging of kids doesn’t help matters) and instead of a bloody lip you get kids shot to death.

            • Nick L. EMT-P says:

              “…we were able to have a good ole fist fight to settle differences.”

              Good old fistfight?

              First, do you have any idea what kind of permanent neurological or physical damage one can sustain with just one lucky punch?

              Have you ever spoken to a teenager with only one good eye because of “good ole fist fight”?

              Do you have any idea what can happen to the human skull when once collapses from standing height onto a concrete surface?

              Second, if kids should settle their differences with fist fights then why can’t adults? Why carry guns and shoot unarmed criminals? Let’s take care of it with a good ole fist fight.

              Food for thought..

  7. Nick L. EMT-P says:

    7 replies and not one questioning why a gun was left in a barn. A barn? Are you kidding me? And people wonder why the antis won’t jump all over this?

    I read crap like this on forums all the time. “Criminals steal the guns! They don’t go to guns stores!” These same people then leave guns in glove boxes or if they don’t, won’t chastise those who do and get their firearms stolen.

    I’m as about anti gun control as one could get. I believe in shall issue; unlicensed open carry; and end to registration; no background checks for private gun sales, etc.

    But for fooks sake, don’t leave guns around in barns where a kid or criminal can get. If you travel by car and carry get a simple cable lock to secure your firearm to something in your car. At minimum!!

    You dam right that the antis SHOULD be all over this if indeed grandpa left a gun unsecured in a barn.

    You wants your rights? Man up and take responsibility for ‘em.

    • Sebastian says:

      No information about how it was stored in the barn. Were the grandfather’s gun in a locked trunk, or a locked closet in the barn, and the kid broke the lock off? Locked drawer at a workbench the kid jimmied open? It’s hard for me to see that someone would just leave a gun laying in the hay, but I wasn’t prepared to call foul on the grandfather without more information.

      • Sage Thrasher says:

        Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised by a gun in the hay. A farmer I used to work for had rifles lying around all over the place, loaded and ready to go.

        We don’t know the details yet, so no need to jump to conclusions. That said, a teenage mind is not fully formed and it is prudent to help prevent events like this as best we can as adults by keeping guns not on our person locked up at all times.

    • mike says:

      You’re jumping all over the grandpa because of what was written in an article that also flips back and forth between calling the .22 a revolver and a MK III. I’d wait a bit for the facts to get sorted out, and empty spaces to get filled in. For all you know, the kid torched through a 3000 pound safe in the barn to get to the gun. Wait for the facts.

      • Nick L. EMT-P says:

        3000 pound safe in barn? He torched a safe and only took the Ruger .22

        Ok, I’ll wait.

        • mike says:

          Maybe he had to cut it out of the gut of a unicorn. The point is, you’re jumping to conclusions you can’t jump to with the limited, flawed information that’s out there.

          In related news, I’m still calling it for antidepressants, but I’ll admit that’s pure conjecture at this point :)

        • Sigivald says:

          If the other weapons were all long-guns, that would explain it.

          See how easy that was?

      • Garrett Lee says:

        3000 pound safe? You mean an average modern sedan?

    • dave ki says:

      I doubt if it was in plain sight ,chances are the kid may have shot it with his Grandfather and knew where it was located whereas someone that just walked in wouldn’t.I one hundred percent agree with you on every aspect except I think the kid was old enough to know where it was and use it any time he wanted(worked out with Grandpa).

    • 1freeman1951 says:

      Nick: 7 replies and not one questioning why a gun was left in a barn. A barn? Are you kidding me? And people wonder why the antis won’t jump all over this?

      You must be a city dweller if you can’t figure this one out. Guess you’ve never been to a farm/ranch where an infestation of rats/vermin have destroyed grain supplies and/or tack before. A 22 pistol/rifle kept in a locker/cupboard in the barn allows a person who discovers such an infestation to be able to immediately deal with the problem instead of attempting to retrieve a firearm from a house 50 yards away all the while hoping the rats don’t disappear before he can get back to the barn.
      This is called country life, where most all country folk are endowed with a large dose of what is called common sense. Something that seems to have been bred out a lot of people living in the ant farms called cities.

      • Nick L. EMT-P says:

        “You must be a city dweller if you can’t figure this one out. Guess you’ve never been to a farm/ranch where an infestation of rats/vermin have destroyed grain supplies and/or tack before. A 22 pistol/rifle kept in a locker/cupboard in the barn allows a person who discovers such an infestation to be able to immediately deal with the problem instead of attempting to retrieve a firearm from a house 50 yards away all the while hoping the rats don’t disappear before he can get back to the barn.
        This is called country life, where most all country folk are endowed with a large dose of what is called common sense. Something that seems to have been bred out a lot of people living in the ant farms called cities.”

        Right! Us city folk are dumb and you country folk are smarter. That’s the crux of your argument. I dare you to repeat the above in the presence of the family of the 3 dead kids and see just what kind of field day the antis and media would have.

        In this day and age of 2A rights being attacked from all sides –even in the wake of Heller and McDonald– common sense dictates that the .22 firearm should have been secured properly.

        You got a vermin infestation? Keep the Ruger on your belt at all times when on your property. Wanna keep it in the barn? Why not use a cable lock around a pipe and through he action. Keep the mag nearby or on your belt. Also, you’re telling me that rat is gonna stand still while you rummage through your cupboard as opposed to drawing from a holster?

        Weak, weak, weak arguments.

        I may be a city boy but I know plenty of people who own farms and live upstate. And one thing all of them have told me is that sheds and barns are prime targets for petty thieves. Ain’t it common sense not to leave *unsecured* guns in a shed or barn??

        Please, continue your ad hominem attacks on city folk. And continue to leave guns laying around whilst proclaiming “Criminals steal guns! They don’t go to gun stores!” And then wonder in amazement as more gun control regulations get passed.

  8. mobo says:

    I’m against laws that would leave my private property open to government inspection to ensure that I’m storing my firearms “properly”. But I have no problem with holding people criminally liable if it can be proved that they were negligent in keeping their firearms from reasonabably forseeable theft. Defining “reasonable” is nearly impossible these days, though….

    • mike says:

      If the government tells us how to store our guns, they’ll also need the ability to verify that our guns are stored “properly”. So we’ll have the gun storage police, like NYC. Canada has very restrictive gun storage requirements (unloaded/disabled/locked safe/etc). Not only isn’t it handy when they find someone creeping around in their bedrooms, but some have also been charged for using their gun defensively because.. wait for it.. it obviously wasn’t stored properly since they were able to use it.

      We need to be very careful when we consider giving the government any bit of power – because they’ll expand it and use it against us in ways we would have never imagined.

      • dave ki says:

        Well Mike that’s gov’t,after all look at Ca.the kids that got butchered because they(dad)had to keep his weapons locked.They never learn.

      • mobo says:

        @Mike,

        Government should have to prove a criminal level of negligence *after* the fact to get a conviction. And existing laws could probably be applied to that effect without any new “safe storage” laws.

        Do what you want in your house with your guns. But when your teenage son shoots up a school with your Glock 17, and it can be proved that you didn’t take reasonable steps to secure it from him, your negligence rises to the level of criminal.

        Again, none of this requires government inspectors going door to door to verify *beforehand* that your firearms are secured “properly”. Leave loaded guns laying around your house if you want, and as long as nothing bad happens, you’ll be fine.

        • Ian Argent says:

          Couple of things: first, safe storage laws are explicitly unconstitutional after Heller. Secondly, given the abuse of DWI laws by conviction of people sleeping it off in their cars I have no desire to give the government another “pre-crime” to charge me with if I happen to levee my handgun on the shooting bench while I engage the fellow next to me in conversation. Finally, there is one person and one person only who is and ought to be held responsible for these murders; and that’s the shooter. Period. The sine qua non of a killing is a killer.

  9. Inebriated Arsonist says:

    The Allentown Morning Call ran a bunch of anti-gun letters today in the editorial section. Tribune company bias strikes again.

  10. Ken Rihanek says:

    The criminal negligence laws are already on the books. If the prosecuter wants to go after grand dad he can. His grandfather was probably not aware that kids today are different. The rules today are different. He thought his family could be trusted.

  11. Bryan S. says:

    Maybe if they let these boys get their frustrations out physically, they wouldnt resort to this. As our wussification of kids went up, so did the shootings.

  12. IllTemperedCur says:

    As to the description of the building as a “barn”, I’m thinking that one man’s “barn” is another man’s “steel building mounted to a concrete slab which houses Grandpa’s metal shop, woodshop, ATVs and gun safe”.

top