Omaha Shootings: Selfish Act of a Bastard

[Moonbear]

Even if that "temporary comfort" will in fact save lives?

Even if. That is a key difference between the US and Britain, and part of the fundamental premise for establishing the US as a separate nation, that the rights of the individual are strongly protected. And, as pointed out, there is no guarantee that banning guns would save lives. In the state where I live, it might even lead to loss of life, as poor people dependent on hunting for food would lose that food source.

In the case of the desperately psychotic person who would open fire on a mall, as turbo pointed out, rather than a rifle, he may well have walked in with a homemade bomb strapped to his body, and killed and maimed even more people than he could hit with a rifle. People bent on killing other people will find ways to do it.

As Evo pointed out, unless someone has barred the exits (like the VT shooter did), with a firearm, the first shot notifies people something is going on so they can flee. Someone going through silently stabbing people is going to cause a commotion near each stabbing, but would take more time for the entire mall to start realizing something is happening. Heck, a commotion with no clear reason might draw more people toward the killer rather than scare them away the way a gunshot does.

By the way, one of the people being reported as wounded wasn't even shot...he fell into a clothing rack while trying to run away, and sustained his injuries that way.

I realize the British view will be entirely at odds with the American view on this, but that's why we're not still British Colonies, because we don't agree on the extent to which individual freedoms trump society's wishes.

 

[turbo]

I think perhaps the fact that guns were almost a necessity in the US 200 years ago when the constitution was written might have a "little" bit to do with the right to bear arms being important then. Had the constitution been written before firearms were invented would we have the right to bear bows and arrows?

I've always wondered if the term "bear arms" specifically means fire arms, or is it just assumed?

At the time the constitution was written, the US was coming off a period of British rule. (Duh! you know that.) My point is that under British rule, the male colonists were required to serve as militia-men in lieu of Britain having to field a huge standing army in the colonies. These colonial men were mustered and shipped off to Nova Scotia, marched off to the Hudson Valley, etc, to fight the French and secure the influence of the British crown in the new world. When the colonists decided to "kick the traces", the British sent regular army to try to seize the muskets, powder, and ball from the armories that they had required the militias to establish to keep themselves suitably armed. The colonists often managed to successfully defend their arms, sometimes by using selective-fire tactics that they learned as Rangers, as opposed to using ranked-formation and volley-firing tactics favored by the British regulars, with their European line-up-in-a-field-and-kill-each-other training. Using these arms, including the ubiquitous Brown Bess, and the Charleville muskets bought from France, the colonial forces defeated the British regular army and their Hessian mercenaries.

When the founding fathers drew up the Constitution, they knew that the security of our country could be more easily negated by an enemy if armament was limited and centralized, and that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep armament diffuse, common, and hard to seize. The founding fathers were not a bunch of dummies, and the 2nd amendment should get a lot more historical respect than it does. The concepts underlying its inclusion have not gone away.

 

[cristo]

I've always wondered if having a fully armed siege engine aimed at my psycho neighbor's house is allowable under my right to bear arms? If not, can I carry around a bomb if that's my choice of arms?

It's a good point. I'd imagine that it specifies somewhere that such items aren't allowed. I guess in the end it's up to the judge you get facing you. I doubt that you'd be able to argue that someone taking your bomb off you was a breach of your constitutional rights; especially not nowadays!

 

[Cyrus]

It's a good point. I'd imagine that it specifies somewhere that such items aren't allowed. I guess in the end it's up to the judge you get facing you. I doubt that you'd be able to argue that someone taking your bomb off you was a breach of your constitutional rights; especially not nowadays!

...having a bomb is illegal. There is no point here.

 

[Moonbear]

When the founding fathers drew up the Constitution, they knew that the security of our country could be more easily negated by an enemy if armament was limited and centralized, and that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep armament diffuse, common, and hard to seize. The founding fathers were not a bunch of dummies, and the 2nd amendment should get a lot more historical respect than it does. The concepts underlying its inclusion have not gone away.

Taken in the appropriate historical context, it argues that every neighborhood or town should have an armory available to the citizens, and should train the citizens to use those arms ("well-regulated" refers more to training than things like licensing). It doesn't necessarily mean everyone needs to keep firearms within their home, but that having a dispersed arsenal readily available in case of attack is essential to national security. Personally, I prefer that a deranged kid can only get ahold of one or two firearms and not have an entire arsenal to break into. Basically, it would support things like gun clubs.

 

[Cyrus]

Doesnt everyone in Israel have a firearm because they are required to serve in the army once they are 18?

The way I see it, every American should serve in the Army when 18 and be given a fully auto rifle, like in Swizerland and many other countries. You are trained to defend yourself and you have a gun to do so. I think most countries make you serve 2 years, and you can do other things than soldiering.

 

[turbo]

Doesnt everyone in Isreal have a firearm because they are required to serve in the army once they are 18?

The way I see it, every American should serve in the Army when 18 and be given a fully auto rifle, like in Swizerland and many other countries. You are trained to defend yourself and you have a gun to do so. I think most countries make you serve 2 years, and you can do other things than soldiering.

That's really not necessary in places like Maine. No foreign invader would try to invade here because there are way more guns than households here, and even trying to take control of roads would be impossible if the populace decided to resist. A more sensible target would be Boston, where people have to jump through hoops to even own a handgun and where a well-placed RPG into a LNG tanker would decimate the waterfront and most of the center of the city.

I have a Ruger Model 1 single-shot rifle in .45-70 with custom loads with heavy slugs (450-500 gr) that approach 2000 fps. There are lots of folks up here with 7mm magnums and other hot rifles that are very accurate, and that no personal body armor is designed to resist. Is Maine therefore immune from invasion? No, but the insurgency would be effective and costly to the invaders.

 

[Evo]

...having a bomb is illegal. There is no point here.

The second ammendment does not specify what is meant by arms. So to say the second ammendment means we have the right to specifically carry guns is not correct. I've started looking into this and there are a lot arguments over what the second ammendment really means. Why are bombs illegal and guns legal?

MISC5 CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE
Section 1101 of title XI of Pub. L. 91-452 provided that: ''The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title (enacting this chapter amending section 2516 of this title, repealing section 837 of this title and sections 121 to 144 of Title 50, War and National Defense, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section) is to protect interstate and foreign commerce against interference and interruption by reducing the hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure storage of explosive materials. It is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, storage, or use of explosive materials for industrial, mining, agricultural, or other lawful purposes, or to provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.''

http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC841.html

So possesion of explosives is ok for "other lawful purposes", what is the "lawful purpose" of a handgun?

 

[cristo]

Is Maine therefore immune from invasion? No, but the insurgency would be effective and costly to the invaders.

You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

 

[turbo]

Taken in the appropriate historical context, it argues that every neighborhood or town should have an armory available to the citizens, and should train the citizens to use those arms ("well-regulated" refers more to training than things like licensing). It doesn't necessarily mean everyone needs to keep firearms within their home, but that having a dispersed arsenal readily available in case of attack is essential to national security. Personally, I prefer that a deranged kid can only get ahold of one or two firearms and not have an entire arsenal to break into. Basically, it would support things like gun clubs.

It would be nice to see that every person who wanted to hunt, target-shoot, etc would get an opportunity to do that on a regular basis. I have had clients in a previous job run into limitations on how they could legally own pistols in NYC, how often they could transport them, and where they could transport them to. Some of the state and municipal laws are inane, and they serve only to constrain the decent people who try to abide by them. I don't advocate an immediate country-wide revocation of municipal regulations and state laws, but they should be examined and rolled back incrementally. Some of the areas with the highest rates of violent crime have the most draconian firearms regulations, leaving residents/homeowners defenseless against the predations of criminals who have guns.

 

[Cyrus]

It could be foreign, or the US government itself. How do you know this won't happen?

 

[Evo]

That's really not necessary in places like Maine. No foreign invader would try to invade here because there are way more guns than households here, and even trying to take control of roads would be impossible if the populace decided to resist. A more sensible target would be Boston, where people have to jump through hoops to even own a handgun and where a well-placed RPG into a LNG tanker would decimate the waterfront and most of the center of the city.

They would just bomb Maine. Kind of like Indiana Jones shooting the swordmaster. Why would an invading force contemplate hand to hand battle with the residents? Give me your lobsters!

 

[turbo]

You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

No. In the time that the US was being established, that was a distinct and ever-present possibility. Nowadays, the threat is internal. The 2nd amendment is as relevant as ever.

 

[turbo]

They would just bomb Maine. Kind of like Indiana Jones shooting the swordmaster. Why would an invading force contemplate hand to hand battle with the residents?

We are too big and thinly-settle to bomb. This isn't WWII Japan. the point is that this state could not be occupied easily, and neither could a whole lot of states outside of NY, RI, MA, MD, CT, CA, OH, PA, and a few others.

If you want my lobsters, you'll have to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

 

[Moonbear]

You don't actually think that any foreign military force is going to try and invade the US, do you?

Of course not...Canada knows all those Mainiacs are armed...hmm...so is Detroit (not necessarily legally)...North Dakota is pretty big on hunting...yeah, I think if they were going to try to invade, it would have to be through Washington state, and we'd have them cornered and sent back across the border in no time.

 

[cristo]

It could be foreign, or the US government itself. How do you know this won't happen?

There'd be no foreign invasion, since the only point in an invasion would be to try and overthrow the government, and occupy the country. This doesn't happen to superpowers! If anyone has a problem that's that big, then it will simply end in a nuclear war.

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.

 

[Evo]

We are too big and thinly-settle to bomb. This isn't WWII Japan. the point is that this state could not be occupied easily, and neither could a whole lot of states outside of NY, RI, MA, MD, CT, CA, OH, PA, and a few others.

Bombing would make much more sense. Just obliterate the key areas, no one cares about people in remote areas. They have nothing of importance and are nowhere of strategic importance. I don't think that homeowners with guns would be a deterrant to an armed force with bombs.

 

[Astronuc]

...North Dakota is pretty big on hunting...

North Dakota is the least visited state.

http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/20079/119326/f/818641-Least-Visited-State-In-The-US-0.jpg

 

[Cyrus]

There'd be no foreign invasion, since the only point in an invasion would be to try and overthrow the government, and occupy the country. This doesn't happen to superpowers! If anyone has a problem that's that big, then it will simply end in a nuclear war.

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.

Are you nostradamus? I don't understand how you speak of what will happen in the future as if it were a fact. Did any nuclear bombs go off in the invation of Iraq? They are fightings us dirty with guns because they all have them in their homes.

 

[Integral]

What, so we should not have any laws because they don't make any difference? Come on!

I'm saying that spur of the moment things like this would not happen if every household did not own a gun.


And you're supporting the fact that Americans should be allowed to own guns? Wow.

first all let it be known that I do not own a gun.

I would NOT support such an impossible law as a total ban on guns. It is ludicrous to even think about it. In fact I am not in favor of gun control in general, we do not need more laws, the US is already throwing more people in jail then we have jails.


Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.

 

[Evo]

Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.

Wouldn't you say that Canada, the UK, really any civilized western country has pretty much the same freedoms? I think that claiming we lose our freedom if guns are made illegal is nonsense, did we lose our freedom when we made explosives illegal? But gun ownership is too widespread to make it illegal with any meaning, it's just not going to happen because the majority doesn't want it to happen which pretty much makes it impossible to enforce.

The Dutch have much fewer laws concerning prostitution and drugs. I'd say this would equate to them having more personal freedom than Americans.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It could be a US government invasion, but isn't it a little paranoid to be thinking like that? Afterall, they are the people that you elected to run your country! Besides, the rest of the world would step in way before it got to civilians fighting the army and the government.

Step in how? By invading themselves? Then we get the contradiction that the impossible foreign invasion will prevent the possible domestic invasion

 

[turbo]

Wouldn't you say that Canada, the UK, really any civilized western country has pretty much the same freedoms? Where, exactly, are we superior?

No. Canadians have pretty much lost the right to own small caliber (.22 cal) handguns and people in GB have lost the ability to own any handguns at all unless they are chambered for obsolete rounds that cannot be obtained commercially.

 

[cristo]

Clearly Cristo you are not American and simply do not understand the basic premise of the US. There is this hard to gain, easy to lose thing called freedom. The US has demonstrated that given the freedom to legislate you can legislate away freedom.

Cleary I don't. However you, as a US citizen, should realize that it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to understand your constitution which preaches freedom and liberty when your government doesn't treat the citizens of other countries in the same way: c.f. Guantanamo bay. To the rest of the world, this is highly hypocritical [1] and impossible to understand!

 

[scorpa]

No. Canadians have pretty much lost the right to own small caliber (.22 cal) handguns and people in GB have lost the ability to own any handguns at all unless they are chambered for obsolete rounds that cannot be obtained commercially.

You can, you just have to jump through a few more hoops than you did before eg I think now you are supposed to be a member of a gun club to own a handgun. I know lots of people with them so it can't be that hard, of course now with the new gun laws it is definitely harder than it was. You are right though, I am sure they are much easier to get in the states.

 

[Cyrus]

Cleary I don't. However you, as a US citizen, should realize that it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to understand your constitution which preaches freedom and liberty when your government doesn't treat the citizens of other countries in the same way: c.f. Guantanamo bay. To the rest of the world, this is highly hypocritical [1] and impossible to understand!

and has nothing to do with gun ownership!

Also, why should they? They are not US citizens, they don't have the rights of a US citizen. They have rights by international law, that's it.

 

[wolram]

The UK is not gun free, i think £250 will get you one.

Gun crime in UK.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

 

[cristo]

and has nothing to do with gun ownership!

I never said it had anything to do with gun ownership laws.. I said it had to do with liberty and freedom; is that not what the constitution stands for?

Also, why should they? They are not US citizens, they don't have the rights of a US citizen. They have rights by international law, that's it.

Ahh.. ok, so now I get the point. America has one set of laws for their own citizens, but screw anyone else. They're nowhere near as superior as you are, and so don't deserve any freedom, or in fact any rights at all?

 

[Cyrus]

My point is waiving your arms and pointing to Guantanamo is just reaching for straws. It has nothing to do with gun laws in the united states.

Second point, as I already said, people do NOT have the rights of a US CITIZEN if they are not a, us citizen. You have rights as per international law. I don't know where your getting 'screw everyone else' and, 'invade other countries whenever they want' stuff from.

 

[cristo]

I'm not waving my arms or clutching at straws; I was responding to a post on freedom!

Never mind, cyrus, there is no point in this discussion, like I said hours ago.

 

[Cyrus]

Sure there is! I am not trying to be mean to you mate

I think your intentions are good, but your expectations on how the world works are unrealistic. Why would a suspected enemy combatant be given more rights than are afforded to him by international law? This makes no sense. There are realistic limits as to how 'nice' you can be to your enemy. If you think this stuff is 'new' then your sadly misinformed. My high school professor was in vietnam. He once asked us, 'what do you think happened when we caught prisoners in the middle of the jungle?' 'They were blind folded and then shot, because you can't drag them along with you and risk being killed'

 

[cristo]

Sure there is! I am not trying to be mean to you mate

Ok, thanks. I just meant there wasn't any point because we're both at completely different ends of the spectrum with our beliefs here!

I think your intentions are good, but your expectations on how the world works are unrealistic. Why would a suspected enemy combatant be given more rights than are afforded to him by international law?

The key word here is "suspected." The phrase "prisoners of war" has changed a lot in the last few years: it used to mean members of an army attacking, but now means, in some cases, suspected terrorists. It's getting very dangerous when a country starts locking people up, indefinitely, for some suspected crimes. Now, I appreciate that a lot of people at Guantanamo will be guilty, and deserve to be locked up, but there are bound to be some who are not guilty of anything, but simply "suspected." Of course, who knows which is which? No-one, so what should your government do? Let them all free, or keep them all detained? I think this sort of decision is one that is encroaching on civil liberties.

This makes no sense. There are realistic limits as to how 'nice' you can be to your enemy. If you think this stuff is 'new' then your sadly misinformed. My high school professor was in vietnam. He once asked us, 'what do you think happened when we caught prisoners in the middle of the jungle?' 'They were blind folded and then shot, because you can't drag them along with you and risk being killed'

Of course, but then I suspect the argument would be that they were in a jungle, and taking these POWs along with them would danger their own lives.

 

[Cyrus]

The key word here is "suspected." The phrase "prisoners of war" has changed a lot in the last few years: it used to mean members of an army attacking, but now means, in some cases, suspected terrorists. It's getting very dangerous when a country starts locking people up, indefinitely, for some suspected crimes. Now, I appreciate that a lot of people at Guantanamo will be guilty, and deserve to be locked up, but there are bound to be some who are not guilty of anything, but simply "suspected." Of course, who knows which is which? No-one, so what should your government do? Let them all free, or keep them all detained? I think this sort of decision is one that is encroaching on civil liberties.

Yes, of course there should be a system to make sure innocent people are not put into jail. But again, its not their civil liberties that are being lost. They dont have civil liberties as defined for a US citizen. We have to respect their international rights, but that's it.

But now we have strayed a far far ways away from gun ownership in the US. This is a totally different topic.

PS- Dont get me wrong. I think GIPMO is a disgusting place and an insult to freedom. But that does not change the rights we so called *have* to give to non citizens.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What's ironic is here we have you two arguing from other sides of the spectrum... cristo believes it's worth endangering people's lives in the name of freedom, and cyrus saying it's not strictly necessary

 

[siddharth]

What's ironic is here we have you two arguing from other sides of the spectrum... cristo believes it's worth endangering people's lives in the name of freedom

I think that's not what cristo is saying. I don't think there's any clear statistical evidence that carrying guns serves as a deterrent. For example, see this review article by the National Academy of Sciences

This chapter is concerned with the question of whether violent crime is reduced through the enactment of right-to-carry-laws, which allow individuals to carry concealed weapons.1 In all, 34 states have right-to-carry laws that allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns. Proponents of these laws argue that criminals are deterred by the knowledge that potential victims may be carrying weapons and therefore that the laws reduce crime. However, it is not clear a priori that such deterrence occurs. Even if it does, there may be offsetting adverse consequences. For example, increased possession of firearms by potential victims may motivate more criminals to carry firearms and thereby increase the amount of violence that is associated with crime. Moreover, allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons may increase accidental injuries or deaths or increase shootings during arguments. Ultimately, it is an empirical question whether allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons generates net social benefits or net social costs.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=120

 

[Cyrus]

I don't have any studies to say if guns reduce crime one way or another, but I will point out that the constituion does not allow for guns to prevent crime.

 

[siddharth]

I don't have any studies to say if guns reduce crime one way or another, but I will point out that the constituion does not allow for guns to prevent crime.

Yeah, I know.

I'm not commenting on whether the US should implement gun control laws or not, but pointing out that one shouldn't take it for granted that owning guns serve as a deterrent and reduce crime. There are studies which go both ways. For example, from the same article I linked to earlier,

The statistical analysis of the effects of these laws was initiated by John Lott and David Mustard (1997) and expanded by Lott (2000) and Bronars and Lott (1998) (hereinafter referred to simply as Lott). Lott concludes that the adoption of right-to-carry laws substantially reduces the prevalence of violent crime. Many other researchers have carried out their own statistical analyses using Lott’s data, modified versions of Lott’s data, or expanded

My personal belief is that there are cultural factors unique to the US which contributes towards gun related violence.

 

[Integral]

Cleary I don't. However you, as a US citizen, should realize that it is rather difficult for the rest of the world to understand your constitution which preaches freedom and liberty when your government doesn't treat the citizens of other countries in the same way: c.f. Guantanamo bay. To the rest of the world, this is highly hypocritical [1] and impossible to understand!

Not changing subjects much are we? Neither I nor any other non Bush American understands what is going on In Gitmo. You must understand that the current administration is an abomination. I feel that the last 2 elections should be seen as a test, all who voted for bush failed. Wish there was a way to prevent them from voting again.

 

[Integral]

Wouldn't you say that Canada, the UK, really any civilized western country has pretty much the same freedoms? I think that claiming we lose our freedom if guns are made illegal is nonsense, did we lose our freedom when we made explosives illegal? But gun ownership is too widespread to make it illegal with any meaning, it's just not going to happen because the majority doesn't want it to happen which pretty much makes it impossible to enforce.

The Dutch have much fewer laws concerning prostitution and drugs. I'd say this would equate to them having more personal freedom than Americans.

Seems like you got a glimmer, perhaps a hint, at what I am trying to say. Read it again Sam, Given the freedom to legislate we legislate away freedom. This is a much broader statement then just gun laws.

 

[Huckleberry]

My personal belief is that there are cultural factors unique to the US which contributes towards gun related violence.

I agree with this opinion, but I don't think it is restricted to gun related violence. I think violence in general has become a part of the American way of life, if it hasn't always been so. Consider the heroes and role models of the United States and how they use violence. The firearms provide a convenient method for acting on those violent tendencies.

The U.S. is both highly individualistic and highly subjective. There are bound to be internal conflicts in a system like that. Put enough pressure on any system and it will eventually spring a leak. If the situation becomes intolerable we must decide to lose a bit of individual freedom or be a little less subjective of others. Basically, I believe that Americans in general value their individual freedoms, but do not respect the freedoms of other Americans. I would be happy to be more objective than I am, but I will not for the life of me willingly forfeit one ounce of individual freedom for the security of the system. People > Status


Bombs are probably illegal because they can't be directed at a specific target. While a criminal might use a pistol in a drive-by, a lawful citizen would not be wise to defend his property or life with a grenade. Home-made explosives do not require a high level of education or expensive or rare components to assemble. I have known people who made them from scratch for their own entertainment. Most criminals have an objective besides random injury and death. Explosives are more likely to be used by terrorists than your common criminal. There isn't much controversy over the regulation of private ownership of explosives. (except around the 4th of July. Ironic that we celebrate freedom by blowing things up. Not that I don't enjoy it.)

Ugh, I hope that paragraph structure doesn't look as scatter-brained to everyone else as it does to me right now.

 

[Moonbear]

I get the impression there has simply been a shift in the type of violence perpetrated by disturbed individuals over the years. When I was a kid/teen, we didn't hear much about mass murders like this, it was a really rare thing, but instead, it seemed there was a story about once a year about a serial killer. You'd get one serial killer, then a series of copycats. Now, you get one mall shooter, then a series of copycats. At least with things like mall shootings, the murderer doesn't usually escape to do it again...if they don't shoot themselves, they often get shot by the cops when they arrive. With serial killers, they stealthily act and escape arrest for a long time, and can have just as many victims as the mass murderers...and they don't necessarily just shoot their victims, but can torture them first, and kill them by slower, more painful means.

I really don't think gun bans would stop an incident like this. It might change the method, but it won't remove that violent tendency from the individual. Discussion of gun bans and the deaths it can prevent usually revolve more around accidental shootings (a kid finds dad's gun and shoots another kid) or crimes of passion (a couple gets into a fight, or discovers one cheating on the other, and one grabs a gun in the heat of that fight). Those who keep their guns within quick reach out of fear of an intruder entering their home are also the ones whose kids are most likely to find those guns. It's the mentality of not locking up the gun that makes it dangerous, not just the fact of having the gun in the home. Same with crimes of passion...having the gun readily accessible is the problem, not the actual ownership. On the other hand, with crimes of passion, if the gun wasn't accessible, it probably would be a butcher knife, golf club, or whatever else is the first thing within reach. All of those can be deadly.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't think gun bans would stop this sort of thing from happening either. These are normally planned events, not spontaneous crimes of passion. A gun ban might make a firearm difficult and hazardous to obtain, but not impossible. I doubt that any would-be mass killer would transform into an content citizen because of a little difficulty. In almost every case of mass murder that I've heard about the individual feels a life-long resentment towards society for some perceived wrong.

Every time something like this happens people start talking about gun bans, which I find a bit frustrating because I don't think firearms are the root of the problem. Just yesterday I was watching the Today Show and there was one woman (I forget what group she was representing) who was on a tirade to disparage the killer. She used words like loser, failure, psychotic, and evil in her descriptions of him. Perhaps those things are true, but she said them vehemently with the intent to disparage him and others like him, which I think misses the point completely.

It's not the killers that are snapping. They were broken a long time ago probably due to some terrible abuse or neglect that nobody was willing to help them with earlier in life. Their minds are full of shame and fear and powerlessness, yet they have done nothing to deserve it. Seeking help means trusting someone enough to reveal how hideous they appear to themselves, and they've never had any reason to trust anyone before. Why should now be any different? Society seems like a heartless, unsympathetic place to live, where the life of one unfortunate person means nothing.

Let that sentiment stir unresolved for a few decades...

Guy decides he's going to give society what it deserves. He's going to exact justice, judge, jury and executioner style on a group of people as helpless as he was. He's going to balance the scales and cause as much pain and grief and anger as he felt for so many years. He's going to get the recognition and respect that is rightfully his. What wasn't given to him, he decides to take by force with as much sympathy as was dealt to him. His last act in this world will be finding freedom in bloody vengeance.

So when I see people hatefully bashing these killers I think they are making a huge mistake. We react angrily out of fear and perpetuate the same feelings in other would-be killers that society cannot be trusted. We pass our judgement without sympathy or regard to the cause. Then in a total disregard for a human life we decide that guns are responsible.

I think the solution to reducing this type of behavior is to recognize it before it advances. Most importantly we must be sympathetic to it. For a moment we need to stop thinking about ourselves and be open to consideration of how others are affected by our actions or lack thereof. In order to retain our own freedom we must be respectful of the freedom of others. We can't turn a blind eye to the unjust suffering of the innocent and then claim no responsibility when they seek to claim their debt. I believe that just the belief that people are trying to seek and render aid to the abused and neglected would be very helpful to them. The problem I see is convincing them in the sincerity and genuine compassion of society. Otherwise any attempt to help would simply be viewed as a way to root out a disease and cut it away from the healthy area, like a cancer.

We must be more objective

 

[Evo]

I don't think gun bans would stop this sort of thing from happening either. These are normally planned events, not spontaneous crimes of passion. A gun ban might make a firearm difficult and hazardous to obtain, but not impossible. I doubt that any would-be mass killer would transform into an content citizen because of a little difficulty. In almost every case of mass murder that I've heard about the individual feels a life-long resentment towards society for some perceived wrong.

Every time something like this happens people start talking about gun bans, which I find a bit frustrating because I don't think firearms are the root of the problem. Just yesterday I was watching the Today Show and there was one woman (I forget what group she was representing) who was on a tirade to disparage the killer. She used words like loser, failure, psychotic, and evil in her descriptions of him. Perhaps those things are true, but she said them vehemently with the intent to disparage him and others like him, which I think misses the point completely.

It's not the killers that are snapping. They were broken a long time ago probably due to some terrible abuse or neglect that nobody was willing to help them with earlier in life. Their minds are full of shame and fear and powerlessness, yet they have done nothing to deserve it. Seeking help means trusting someone enough to reveal how hideous they appear to themselves, and they've never had any reason to trust anyone before. Why should now be any different? Society seems like a heartless, unsympathetic place to live, where the life of one unfortunate person means nothing.

Let that sentiment stir unresolved for a few decades...

Guy decides he's going to give society what it deserves. He's going to exact justice, judge, jury and executioner style on a group of people as helpless as he was. He's going to balance the scales and cause as much pain and grief and anger as he felt for so many years. He's going to get the recognition and respect that is rightfully his. What wasn't given to him, he decides to take by force with as much sympathy as was dealt to him. His last act in this world will be finding freedom in bloody vengeance.

So when I see people hatefully bashing these killers I think they are making a huge mistake. We react angrily out of fear and perpetuate the same feelings in other would-be killers that society cannot be trusted. We pass our judgement without sympathy or regard to the cause. Then in a total disregard for a human life we decide that guns are responsible.

I think the solution to reducing this type of behavior is to recognize it before it advances. Most importantly we must be sympathetic to it. For a moment we need to stop thinking about ourselves and be open to consideration of how others are affected by our actions or lack thereof. In order to retain our own freedom we must be respectful of the freedom of others. We can't turn a blind eye to the unjust suffering of the innocent and then claim no responsibility when they seek to claim their debt. I believe that just the belief that people are trying to seek and render aid to the abused and neglected would be very helpful to them. The problem I see is convincing them in the sincerity and genuine compassion of society. Otherwise any attempt to help would simply be viewed as a way to root out a disease and cut it away from the healthy area, like a cancer.

We must be more objective

After reading about this poor kid and the life he had, it's really sad that it ended this way. I agree with what you said.

 

[turbo]

On the other hand, with crimes of passion, if the gun wasn't accessible, it probably would be a butcher knife, golf club, or whatever else is the first thing within reach. All of those can be deadly.

If I wanted to kill somebody and reduce my chances of injury in the confrontation, the golf club would be my choice. You don't even have to smuggle one into a mall - just walk in, go the the sports shop and choose your weapon. Very quick, quiet, and effective.

 

[Huckleberry]

I consider it a tragedy in more ways than one, although I haven't really heard anything about this kids situation yet. I'm presuming there is an explanation for it in his personal history.

I've read that the frontal lobe doesn't fully develop often until late in a person's 20's. I'm not certain, but it seems like people under this age are more likely to be mass murderers, possibly due to poor brain development in some cases. I'm curious how frontal lobe development can be related to a child's upbringing. It would at least give something to measure.

Perhaps as they start getting older they start to realize they aren't the same as other people their own age. They feel denied any pleasure from life that they see others enjoying. Perhaps they even try to be normal, but never really feel accepted. Anyone they get close to might eventually perceive the powerful negative emotions under the surface. The only people they can be themselves around are people with similar emotions. They spend a lot of time alone. One day they decide that there is no hope of acceptance and no point of living life in rejection. Then they start planning their escape.

How common are incidents like these in eastern cultures, Japan particularly?

 

[turbo]

Every time something like this happens people start talking about gun bans, which I find a bit frustrating because I don't think firearms are the root of the problem. Just yesterday I was watching the Today Show and there was one woman (I forget what group she was representing) who was on a tirade to disparage the killer. She used words like loser, failure, psychotic, and evil in her descriptions of him. Perhaps those things are true, but she said them vehemently with the intent to disparage him and others like him, which I think misses the point completely.

The need to identify and treat people with severe disconnects from reality is great. It's not enough to treat someone for substance abuse and self-destructive behavior - those are symptoms, not the underlying problems. If treatment facilities modify the symptomatic behavior of a person like this without addressing the fundamental problems, and he is then released, he is a time bomb primed to revert to self-destructive behavior or to really cut loose and lash out at others.

Focusing on the method/weapon used by such an unbalanced person is inappropriate, and it absolves our social-services system of their failure to properly treat their patient, monitor his condition and transition him to supervised release so they could see if he was acclimating to life on the outside. This particular kid had been institutionalized for years during a time of his life that is critical for healthy development, socialization, and maturation.

 

[Wagon Master]

Cristo,

I am a gun owner (and a crack shot with a 9, I might add) and I have a different take than most folks. I don't see owning a gun as Constitutional issue so much as a natural one. Every cat has claws, every dog has fangs, every bear has claws and fangs, birds have beaks, etc. You see, every speices in nature has just about the same tools to attack and defend as every other of it's type. Some are bigger than other, some are faster, some are stronger, but they all possesses about the same tools.

I think that humans should have the same advantages. Our biggest "equalizer" has been our brains. Cats and dogs and monkeys don't build weapons, but we do. We should each have the right to the same tools as the person who would do us harm. Just like the animals. Natural law.

We should also be held more responsible for our actions and choices than we are.

 

[EnumaElish]

He was diagnosed and institutionalized as an adolescent or teenager.

Wondering about the amount & type of antidepressants (SSRIs?) he was prescribed/exposed to.

 

[Astronuc]

After reading about this poor kid and the life he had, it's really sad that it ended this way. I agree with what you said.

Evo succinctly reflects my thoughts in reference to Huck's post (#92).

Hawkins was a troubled teenager who spent four years in a series of treatment centers, group homes and foster care after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002. He had recently broken up with a girlfriend and lost his job at a McDonald's.

"I've just snapped. I can't take this meaningless existence anymore I've been a constant disappointment and that trend would have only continued," he wrote in a suicide note left at the suburban house where he lived.

Teenage years are tumultous, but without good support (of a loving home, family or friends), some end up on a downward spiral.

The issue isn't one of banning guns, but rather how members of a society/family treat one another, and in some cases such as this, how mentally ill people can get proper treatment.

 

[Astronuc]

How common are incidents like these in eastern cultures, Japan particularly?

Apparently, similar events are on the rise in Japan. When I was in Tokyo about 10 years ago, there were two stories about alienated and troubled teens resorting to violence. In one case, a young man attacked (and IIRC killed) a teacher, and in another case, a young man killed a former girl friend (and killed or injured other students). In both cases, knives rather than guns were used.

Personally, I'm ambivalent about guns, or rather types of guns. I've fired pistols, rifles and shotguns. They do have legitimate uses, e.g. for hunting (for food - I detest shooting animals for trophies) or sport. On the other hand, there is a great capacity to do harm. Then again, any tool can be used as a weapon.

Ultimately it comes down to how we treat one another and how we teach respect (love, care, concern, . . . .) for others.