Oops,forgot Dahmer & you're right SeanF.
The greatest mass murder in US history didn't involve guns either,just boxcutters.
I'm not sure how a law-abiding citizen who wants to own a gun could really complain if he needs to take a gun safety course, get a license, have a waiting period, or whatever would be associated with reasonable gun control.
Part of the reason is it doesn't happen all in one place. About 40K per year die in auto accidents, which is about 110 per day. If 110 people died in one place, it would be big news, no matter what the cause.
And, if I could gain control of the media, I'd make you a substantial bet that I could gin up a majority in favor of banning automobiles or at least reducing the speed limit to 10MPH, and enforcing that with governors. I'd do it by harping on the "carnage on our highways" day in and day out.
The reason that is not done is everyone is makes the rational decision that the benefits of automobiles are worth that 110 dead per day. However, no one is going to say it. They know it deep down and act accordingly.
But I'd still bet you I could gin up enough emotion to do it.
Well, well, it seems our lone gunman sent a little "media package" to NBC news sometime during that spree, they think between the time he killed the first two and the later rampage.
That package contained pictures of himself posing with his weapons (shades of Columbine) and looking menacing, along with more of his creative writing.
Yeah, he wanted to be a media star bad guy. While, the contents will certainly be interesting as to just what was up with the lunatic, I hope none of them actually air it. Let none of his media wishes be carried out, which will at least be helpful for any copycats who get similiar ideas in their deranged heads.
Last year, then, right?
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Moderation will be in purple.
Rules for Posting to This Board
The only incidents I've ever had are misfires, and my grandpop showed me how to properly deal with those when I was nine.
It's like the answer a lot of people had mid-last century when told they had to get a driver's license. "What for? So that I can be allowed to do something I've been doing, safely, for the last thirty years?"
As for guns being the weapon, forget it. A pen is a more effective weapon than a gun, if one knows how to use it. Look how many people Saddam killed with nothing more than a few well-aimed strokes of a pen.
Or did we forget that the pen is mightier than the sword? (or gun?)
Alexander the Great didn't have guns, either, and look how many people expired as a result of his aspirations.
Let's keep this in perspective, people. It's a societal issue, not a gun-control issue.
However, the other side of things, which I think does relate somewhat to our discussion here, is that the generals were fighting a war with old-military tactics and using new-military weapons. Sending a few thousand guys charging in a straight line is great if they're going against a bunch of guys with swords and muzzle loaders, but if they've got repeating rifles, it's a different story. The tactics most of the generals were using were unchanged from the days of . . . well, a lot of them had studied Napoleon, but the tactics go back beyond that.
I don't think bringing Ted Bundy into the discussion really is worth anything. Ted Bundy was desperate to kill people--women with long, brown hair parted in the middle, to be specific. (Actually, I fit his victim profile to a certain extent, and he took at least one victim from my alma mater, too.) In Florida, he used a log and killed two and wounded at least two others. But as mentioned, it was more about getting up close to his victims, and a gun didn't suit his purposes.
The Manson family primarily (though not exclusively) used knives, but that was because they thought it scared people more. Also, you don't need to buy bullets, and they were notoriously short of cash.
However, for mass murder and not serial murder, you're generally looking at either guns or explosives.
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
203,000 killed in action, 618,000 total dead, 412,000+ wounded
World War I:
Military dead: 9,906,000 Military wounded: 21,219,000
World War II:
Military dead: 31,000,000 Civilian dead: 40,000,000
Where did you get your numbers from?
Or do you think only American lives count?
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
AstralSpirt meant American dead. That does not mean that he or she thinks that only American lives count. Relax.
Here are the figures:
Note what is striking about the Civil War is the casualty *rates* compared to others (save for the Mexican War). There were huge non-combat death rates due to disease, privation, etc. That is what is so striking about the Civil War.
I don't understand. How is the control of gun avaliablity in a society not a societal issue?mugaliens wrote:
Let's keep this in perspective, people. It's a societal issue, not a gun-control issue.
OK, I'm kidding. Dividing things up that way allows one to pretend that gun control is not a societal issue, but exists on its own astral plane somewhere.
However you view personal posession of firearms, it seems to me to be sutnningly relevant in any debate about how a society balances safety, freedom, individualism and common good.
"Imminent danger to himself and others". Apparently, a Virginia court made that determination, officially, one year ago. That would legally prevent him from buying a gun. The question is why this was not "put in the system", why it didn't show up.
Don't get me wrong, and go too far in the blame game. Crap happens. But the above needs to be looked at closely. What happened and why did that determination by a court not "propagate".
About the "disturbing writings". Well, it's clear now that was just one part of a stark pattern of total behavior. Apparently, one of his instructors had a code word worked out with an assistant to signal the assistant to call the cops.........
Again, don't get in the mode of demanding heads on a platter (unless it is really warranted in some cases, which only investigation can tell), but, a review of various laws about what can and can't be done and which part of the system knows about other parts needs to be reviewed.
Gun laws don't protect people. They put them at a disadvantage. Laws only apply to law abiding citizens.
Gun safety works. Defensive Tactics work. But the best thing anyone can do is be aware of their surroundings.
In the case of this story, there was nothing anyone could have done. And it shouldn't be suggested that there was after the fact. Not even a soldier knows how he will react during his first REAL firefight, even though he was trained.
It is insulting to anyone on that campus for people to suggest ways they could have should have or would have.
The real answer is that they could not.
You don't know you're going to break a tooth until you bite into your food and something is in there to break it, and it snaps.
You can know that there is a bone in it, and you are careful not to chomp on the bone, but unless you are paranoid, you have no reason to look for a piece of steel from the proccessing plant.
You can buy a box of Cheerios, and you may come across a burnt one.
But you will never get around to eating the Cheerios if you spend all your time looking for one that may be in the box or not before you take the first bite.
We have to chalk this tragedy up to ONE in a few hundred million that lost it.
Maybe we should be thankful that this doesn't happen EVERY day.
Having just watched this guys deranged and incoherent video manifesto air, I fear we have just given a narcissistic sociopath all the lasting infamy he could have ever hoped for. Yuk.
It gives him what he wants, and there's a chance, in the heat of the passion about this, that it will set off copycats. Note he idolized the Columbine murderers.
I was specifically refered to American military dead. My numbers correct. How foolish to think that a fact comes with some sort of taint.
I resent your implication that I think only in terms of Americans simply because of I post a fact. I was told that this board had more than its share of arrogant posters and I concur.
That is not an insult, it is an observation. If my facts are in error you have not shown them so. I am a woman and I have a pretty touch hide, but I prefer to be judged on the correctness of the facts I present. Not on someone elses attemot to read my mind.
Despite even the BA's warnings to avoid gun-control and related issues, there may be no way to. And, as predicted, it's starting to get heated.
I'm locking this for now. It may or may not be opened in the future. The one warning I will give is to not open a duplicate thread for any other reason than to offer condolences at this point.