Pittsburgh fitness club gunman telegraphed his intent on Web log

The shooting occurred just after 8 p.m. Tuesday, when the gunman walked into LA Fitness Center in Collier with a duffel bag, turned out the lights in a room where a dance class was going on, then opened fire on the women in the room. Three were dead and at least nine wounded before he turned the gun on himself.

The log kept by Sodini shows he planned the shooting for months, and backed out several times. Sodini, a systems analyst at K and L Gates since 1999, entered the club with loaded guns on Jan. 6 but didn’t go through with it. “It is 8:45PM: I chickened out!” he wrote. “I brought the loaded guns, everything. Hell!”

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, Violence

11 comments on “Pittsburgh fitness club gunman telegraphed his intent on Web log

  1. Fr. Dale says:

    Jesus Christ could have made a difference in this man’s life and church could have kept him from feeling isolated.

  2. magnolia says:

    why do we never hear from the NRA when these incidents happen? i would like to hear an explanation from them as to why these type events keep happening.

  3. Ouroboros says:

    Magnolia, I don’t represent the NRA but I am a Life Member. I’ll bite.

    They “keep happening” because human nature is flawed by the Fall of Man. They “keep happening” because in any country of 300 million people, there are bound to be a few dozen crazies a year who hurt other people with firearms.

    What is your point? That we should ban guns? First, that overlooks that killers kill with other things too. In countries that have severely restricted gun ownership, there are phenomena like knifing sprees (see posts on this very blog for English Bishops decrying knife attacks). Second, it overlooks that in many many cases, guns in the hands of good people prevent or end crimes (see the Appalachian Law School and Colorado church examples). Third, it overlooks like gun ownership is a constitutional right. We do not restrict constitutional rights of people who have done nothing wrong simply because some people take their rights and with them, do something wrong.

    Let me end with a spin on your question. “Why do we never hear from the ACLU when someone, spurred by First Amendment protected hate speech on a Skinhead website, kills a black man? Why do these type of events keep happening? Why do we never hear from the ACLU when someone, set free because the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights, promptly kills again? Why do these type of events keep happening?”

  4. teatime says:

    Dcn Dale,
    I read the guy’s blog and it seems like he got involved with the wrong type of church, unfortunately.

  5. Fr. Dale says:

    teatime,
    What church was it?

  6. APB says:

    Anybody know if it was posted as a “Gun Free Zone?”

  7. teatime says:

    Dcn Dale,
    I don’t remember the name. It was rather odd and sounded non-denom. But the gunman had quite a bit of negative stuff to say about the pastor.

  8. magnolia says:

    Ouroboros, i see your point but i think you have me wrong. i am not against owning guns per se. i am actually torn here as i see where when people are attacked(i always seem to catch the show ‘i survived’ on cable) they should certainly have the right to protect themselves. however…i don’t believe it should be unrestricted ownership like the radical right wing and indeed the NRA believes. there are too many kooks or those with short tempers that escalate situations to the point of violence. i don’t have issues with it right now, but if it were my loved who got killed by someone who SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAD ACCESS TO GUNS, darn tooting i would be embarassing the heads of the NRA at any chance i could. as for the knife attacks, as i don’t know the situations, but if it were in a crowded place it could be stopped and less overall death would be a result. knives can be stopped easier than spraying bullets.

    and fyi, i cannot stomach the ACLU either.

  9. Fr. Dale says:

    #8. magnolia,
    [blockquote]i don’t believe it should be unrestricted ownership like the radical right wing and indeed the NRA believes.[/blockquote]
    Magnolia, I think you understand the NRA via the MSM not the NRA. I am an NRA member and they are certainly NOT for unrestricted gun ownership. I am not a spokesperson but they would definitely be opposed to a mentally ill person owning a gun or a severely cognitively impaired individual. I believe they would not want anyone who was not properly trained in gun safety and handling to own a gun.

  10. magnolia says:

    if that were indeed true then i would say my bad opinion might be incorrect but i sure seem to see that any attempt to restrict ownership is staunchly opposed by the NRA and they are a powerful lobby. they don’t want AK 47’s or the like restricted and they also don’t want to restrict guns in national parks, isn’t that correct? so perhaps it might be better if you can tell me what restrictions or limits or screenings they would actually support. i would be interested in knowing this, thanks.

  11. Fr. Dale says:

    #10. magnolia,
    [blockquote]they don’t want AK 47’s or the like restricted and they also don’t want to restrict guns in national parks, isn’t that correct?[/blockquote]
    1. An AK 47 is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle. They are illegal as automatics.
    2. Only individuals who hold a valid concealed weapons permit will be allowed to carry in a national park. If you think it is an easy process try and apply for a concealed weapons permit.
    3. Gun owners such as myself see our 2nd amendment right to bear arms as important as your 1st amendment right to free speech opposing firearms.
    Blessings,