http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/authorities-respond-naperville-train-station-422628944.html
guess he was PO’ed at being late?
From the linked article:
“The suspect, a man in his 70s from Wisconsin, fired from the window of a train, according to police. The alleged shooter was found by police being restrained by passengers on the train, authorities said.”
From a window ?!? Was it open ? Maybe a vestibule ?
Kudos to the passengers for having the courage to restrain him !
Cranky old man ?
- PDN.
According to the link that Houston Ed posted, the man with the gun was a Metra passenger, not an Amtrak passenger. There is still the mystery–how was a window open? Can the windows on Mtra cars be opened by passengers?
Or, is “Metra” bad reporting?
Accoring tio the linked article: The shooter was a septagenarian (that 70 yrs old ![oops] )…The ‘cranky old man’ was apparently a passenger on a METRA train that was also stopped at the Naperville Platform(?). The AMTRAK Conductor was off the SW Chief. he was shot in the torso. The article also mentions ( I guess for the sake of politics?) that AMTRAK’S gun policy is that unloaded guns may be in checked bags,( with prior niotification tothe carrier(?). Loaded wepons are not permitted,at all… Hope the Conductor survives his wounds…and the shooter…? Who knows, after all it is Chicago… the tole for shootings this year 1,000 as of April.
Here is another (longer article from Chicago Tribune)article. [annoying advertisements!]
@
Well, maybe if the good people could shoot back the thugs would think twice…
And if the thugs are killing each other, where is the problem?
Sheldon
From the Chicago Tribune: “The suspect, a resident of the Milwaukee suburb of West Allis, Wis., was headed to Chicago, the next stop after Naperville, Cammiso said. He said he did not know where the man boarded the train.”
Who is “He?” The man who shot the conductor?
Has the writer of this studied the English language? (Academic question)
The context makes the referent pretty obvious. English is a contextual language.
Some pretty silly comments from Amtrak, Metra and the police. “Highly unusual” – god I hope so. Amtrak is increasing police presence – guy wasn’t riding an Amtrak train. You could have 100 police on board and that wouldn’t stop this sort of thing. “Guns are not allowed” – nor is bank robbery – has that stopped it? Please someone admit that this is another failure of the mental health system. I bet the perpetrator has had numberous run in with the police and the psychiatric system. Nothing has helped. He looked out the window, saw a uniformed officer and took a shot to keep the officer from taking him off the train.
Sorry to be so coarse, but at some point we are going to have to learn how to treat these people – or continue this charade of arresting the really sick folks after they have done something like this.
Amtrak’s answer will be to add more police. Will have absolutely no effect on these instances.
Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem.
So, the news is that the alledged perpetrator is a 79 year old retired Federal law enforcement officer. He seems to have lost contact with reality.
And nothing prevents them from owning cars which can be just as deadly. Not long ago here we had a guy cross the center line of a highway at 75 mph and kill a family so he could commit suicide. Yet there is no great outcry to ban cars?
Sheldon
No, the “problem” in this case is that a former Federal law-enforcement officer shot at someone. Are you claiming with a straight face that any present or prospective ‘gun control’ legislation would be applied to that person? That his fellow officers would forcibly confiscate his firearms even if he were nominally adjudicated mentally defective or whatever? In Chicago???
Personally, yes, I think there should be restrictions on the ability of people with some mental-illness concerns to access firearms – in fact, I would argue this applies even to the merely suicidal. I have no objection to waiting periods, or objective background checks, and even some kinds of statutory exceptions to Second Amendment rights. My personal opinion is that one of the best arguments about an unrestricted interpretation of the Second Amendment can often be found by looking at many of the people in gun stores. But very little of that applies in this case, and I would be interested in a professional opinion of how that particular class of person could be effectively ‘gun controlled’ under a fair system.
[quote user=“ATLANTIC CENTRAL”]
schlimm
petitnj
Some pretty silly comments from Amtrak, Metra and the police. “Highly unusual” – god I hope so. Amtrak is increasing police presence – guy wasn’t riding an Amtrak train. You could have 100 police on board and that wouldn’t stop this sort of thing. “Guns are not allowed” – nor is bank robbery – has that stopped it? Please someone admit that this is another failure of the mental health system. I bet the perpetrator has had numberous run in with the police and the psychiatric system. Nothing has helped. He looked out the window, saw a uniformed officer and took a shot to keep the officer from taking him off the train.
Sorry to be so coarse, but at some point we are going to have to learn how to treat these people – or continue this charade of arresting the really sick folks after they have done something like this.
Amtrak’s answer will be to add more police. Will have absolutely no effect on these instances.
Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem.
And nothing prevents them from owning cars which can be just as deadly. Not long ago here we had a guy cross the center line of a highway at 75 mph and kill a family so he could commit suicide. Yet there is no great outcry to ban cars?
Sheldon
Yes, ideally there should be extensive background checks every three years for ownership. This would include (at least) severe mental illnesses (anything with psychosis), some physical illnesses, blindness, drug and alcohol abuse, and felony convictions.
Confiscation? Different issue.
I actually support better screening, but the levels you are suggesting are tantamount to putting a blow and go on every car to prevent drunk driving. On any topic, the good people should not be punished in advance for the sins of a few.
Which in fact is a very few considering the large number of legal gun owners who have never committed a serious crime, let alone a gun crime and the relatively few people who do commit gun crimes.
That is effectively a ban and/or it negates the presumption of innocence.
Just let the good people shoot back, the problem will get smaller from a number of directions…
I have an idea, if you have a violent felony rap sheet, and you get shot dead, by a cop or your “friends in the hood”, we don’t count you in the murder stats…then look at the m
Actually, a better analogy (for driving) might be something done in a number of states now: a mandatory ‘retest’ every few years for drivers over a particular age to confirm they still meet the criteria for a driver’s license. In my opinion this isn’t something that ‘a doctor’s note’ or mail-in form can do effectively: it needs to be done at State level, using the same equipment and techniques used to assess new drivers, and involve at least some version of road-testing or simulation to confirm the ability to drive as well as physical abilities. How often this needs to be done is the same kind of issue schlimm raised for firearms: some older people may lose capacity relatively quickly and without advance warning, while others may reach advanced age without material loss of ability … or apparent ability. (There is also the manipulation of any system of periodic retest as a means of tacit control or abuse, which I’ll take up again in a bit.) Only a fair and equitable test can determine if a particular individual is still ‘capable’ by due-process-legitimized standards, and I think it is fair even to ‘spot-check’ for this – just not selectively by ‘profiling’ or as an excuse…
Personally, I think having a ‘breathalyzer lite’ on the steering wheel for every driver who drinks alcohol is a perfectly reasonable thing to mandate; it is certainly a better approach than, say, attempting to pass responsibility for ‘impaired driving’ onto hosts or bar owners. I also have no particular ‘rights’ issue requiring the devices for underage or probationary drivers (whose rights are already impaired, sometimes in insulting ways) to the extent tha
Yes, I was still editing my thoughts…
“blow and go lite” - But I don’t drink at all, why should I pay? in any way,shape or form?
Sheldon
I said “ideally.” I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem.
And drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns…but prohibition did not work either.
The red herrings are beautiful this time of year.