ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Blame deinstitutionalization, not guns

Guns don't kill people, crazy people who don't want to get locked up kill people:
The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”
Sometimes, it really is just the crazy.  And if you let the confirmed crazies run around free until they kill someone, you're assured that eventually some of them are going to do it.

Labels:

115 Comments:

Anonymous Daniel December 18, 2012 5:58 PM  

Unless you ban guns as strictly as they did in Australia, of course. Then the nuts can roam freely and safely through friendly suburban streets.

Blogger JohnG December 18, 2012 6:05 PM  

Karl Denninger posted that the kid might have been on an antipsychotic called Fanapt. I might have refrained from gun days at the range if I thought one of my kids was going nuts.

Anonymous J December 18, 2012 6:08 PM  

I haven't heard this too many places, but apparently Lanza's father was going to testify in the LIBOR scandal. This is very similar to the Aurora shooter, who's father was also scheduled to testify. Could be nothing...

Anonymous Susan December 18, 2012 6:13 PM  

Not sure how mom could have committed the shooter because the forcible committment legislation was supposedly shut down last year. Saw that headline recently.

If she could have committed him, she might have been able to head this tragic event off.

The ACLU and their ilk should be where the anger is focused, not at the NRA.

Anonymous TLM December 18, 2012 6:13 PM  

Yeah, another great legacy of Kennedy's Camelot. Always annoyed at my Grandma's infatuation with all things Kennedy.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 18, 2012 6:24 PM  

Take a look at the labeling on any psychotropic drug and it clearly warns about suicidal thoughts and tendencies.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 18, 2012 6:25 PM  

Those who wish to ban firearms from our society operate on the silly idea that if law abiding citizens are all defenseless, there will be less crime.

Too bad John Wayne did not do a cowboy movie on this theme, where everyone lived safe, secure and crimefree lives in the Wild West because they did not have any firearms or know anything about their use. Instead of coming to the rescue, the US Cavalry could throw flowers and shame the marauding Indians into breaking off the attack. Not entirely unarmed, the Indians would still be able to use their favorite tomahawk, scalping knife, lance and bow.

Anonymous Cinco December 18, 2012 6:29 PM  

I just had this discussion with my libertarian leaning wife. The question is simple, do people who are legitimately insane have the right to bear arms? I believe that they do. As horrible as these situations are, if we let the government pick and choose which groups get own firearms, well, that's a slippery slope.

Anonymous drose December 18, 2012 6:34 PM  

Sadly a lot of the mentally ill now get their mental health treatment in prison. I work at one such facility. The psychiatric hospitals were Shangri-la compared to Corrections mental health programs. At least at the psych hospitals they could actually have a decent quality of life. As it stands in Corrections the only two treatment options are dope em up and lock em up.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 18, 2012 6:39 PM  

I wonder if he also discovered that he was not the son of the man he had been led to believe was his father.

I know not whence this suspicion comes.

Anonymous Matt December 18, 2012 6:43 PM  

The question is simple, do people who are legitimately insane have the right to bear arms? I believe that they do.

While I find your consistency admirable though misguided, this is... probably not a message that's going to resonate with the public.

Blogger Lovekraft December 18, 2012 6:56 PM  

We should leave theories about the causes of this massacre to the experts. If not, we let the masses develop lynch mob mentality in seeking to politicize it (attacks on the NRA, for example).

Bloggers are within their rights to postulate, but unless there is direct evidence a group directly ordered the individual(s) to take action, their theories should remain that: theories.

Why I say this is that progressives are masters at controlling the narrative and should be watched closely in terms of how they falsely attach blame.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 18, 2012 6:58 PM  

Vox,

Do you support any changes to US federal gun laws in either direction, easing or increasing them? If so, which specific changes do you support? I assume one is increased background checks to determine mental stability?

Anonymous Boogeyman December 18, 2012 7:08 PM  

I recall an old Fred Friendly debate where they were talking about the homeless and when it was appropriate to give them money. The subject of the mentally ill homeless also came up and if they should be committed. One man, I don't recall who, said "If you wouldn't let children live unattended on the streets, why would you let the child-like?"

Anonymous Frederick303 December 18, 2012 7:08 PM  

looks likethe mental checks worked, he was refused a gun sale a few days before the attack.

Anonymous Fat Sam December 18, 2012 7:09 PM  

I had a friend who axed his parents because they were going to send him back to the orphanage they got him from.

He was a nice dude. Quiet. Good looking. Fairly strict boundaries though, apparently.

Anonymous daddynichol December 18, 2012 7:25 PM  

Back in my late 20's I was admitted to a alcohol/drug treatment in patient center for a month. Long story short, sober and clean since October 27th 1981. Marriage survived and still going strong for 37 years. Became a counselor years later and was promoted to Program Director (ran a center), but left to persue other career options. Under the current hysterial mind set, I should not be permitted to buy, own or use my collection of firearms since I've been in a form of mental institution. MMPI, IQ and CQ tested 4 times.

Mental evaluations prior to purchase or use would be an absolute disaster. Most all of the psychologists, sociologists and psychiatrists are more screwed up than their patients. Most people working in the mental health field do so because they think they fix their personal issues if they work in the field. Just about everyone I've encountered are far left, unicorn, puppies, kittens and rainbow chasing nut cases. If they are tasked to be the gun buying gate keepers, then they will find everyone nuts in one form or another.

BTW, I was an old school counselor: You're screwed up, but you'll get better inspite of my best efforts. You know what you need to do, now get busy.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 18, 2012 7:27 PM  

I haven't heard this too many places, but apparently Lanza's father was going to testify in the LIBOR scandal. This is very similar to the Aurora shooter, who's father was also scheduled to testify. Could be nothing...

and

I wonder if he also discovered that he was not the son of the man he had been led to believe was his father.

There's a significant genetic link between high achievers and crazy offspring. Corporate CEOs have a disproportionate number of bipolar sons, and it's probably getting worse with the increase in associative mating. If you're high on the Dark Triad scale and you have kids with the daughter of a man also high on the Dark Triad scale, your sons likely have a higher chance of being unstable.

It's probably something like sickle cell anemia: 25% chance the kid is Beta, 50% chance he's DT alpha, and 25% chance he's at least borderline psycho.

What kind of man was your father-in-law? What sort of time bomb is that little kid who looks like you?

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments December 18, 2012 7:29 PM  

Cinco has the right idea.

And all ye who argue for involuntary commitment are in for a surprise when you get your wish.

Think about it, do you want ultra-liberal (ahem, jewish) "psychiatrists" to have the ability to lock up anyone they want?


Anonymous daddynichol December 18, 2012 7:30 PM  

Now we're getting somewhere!

Blogger ProNorden December 18, 2012 7:30 PM  

The kid, Adam, was apparently bright and depressed, shy/withdrawn and may have had Asperger's syndrome. And he was the brother of 3 or 4 year-elder Ryan. Parents divorced in 2009 after a long separation. Dad remarried. Mom didn't. Adam may have experienced physical, psychological, and social abuse(bad-mouthing/smearing)by brother Ryan and others. And may have been picked-on in school.
Ryan works for Ernst & Young in accounting/finance-related field, like their Dad, Peter. Ryan may have won the sibling rivalry for Dad's performance-based approval. Adam may have felt profound neglect from his Dad.
Mom, Nancy, doesn't appear much of a consolation prize. Likely narcissist, maybe using Adam in Munchausen-by-proxy kind of situation. Using his alleged "need" of her to shore-up her non-working standing in the community and shaky self-esteem.
With at least one decent parent or mentor Adam would probably have been in the range of high-functioning normal, become an above-average computer programmer and developed better relationships than those afforded by his family.
Oh, well.

Anonymous Battlefrog December 18, 2012 7:39 PM  

Do you think the mentally ill should be locked up? It seems like granting the government more power in this could be a even more dangerous than crazies like him.

Anonymous Unending Improvement December 18, 2012 7:45 PM  

You'll always be able to find a gun, but you probably won't be able to leave the mental institution.

Anonymous Jones December 18, 2012 7:59 PM  

But mental health issues don't kill people, people kill people. Surely the radical libertarian position is to let them roam free — and just arm the rest of us with Uzis.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 18, 2012 8:06 PM  

Do you see now - if only they had followed my troika program of banning of high-cap mags, cutting index and middle fingers off, and herding them into my efficient work camp complex, no one would have to hire a child to do public service announcements reading off the victims' names. Such a better world it would be. I propose calling this inevitable progressive paradise: The People's Republag of Eutadpia, Etat Noir - or PREEN for short.

Anonymous Prussian Training December 18, 2012 8:26 PM  

But mental health issues don't kill people, people kill people. Surely the radical libertarian position is to let them roam free — and just arm the rest of us with Uzis.

Fascinating. Who gets to define "mental health" and enforce it?
Like ALL things government and medical industry, they would be entirely benevolent. It would all be for our own good.
You are ignorant, not only of the nature of Power, but of the last 4 decades of the "mental health" issue and what they hope to accomplish with it - and what they already have.
So, yes, your "radical Libertarian" solution is the best one by far, as it relates to human freedom and liberty. Action vs Consequences. Responsibility. You are in denial of Nature itself.
You also have reading comprehension issues concerning this post.
Tell us, in your emotional moralizing of late, what percentage of gun related deaths every year are black on black - and why is your media racist and not reporting this?

Anonymous PR December 18, 2012 8:27 PM  

Vox,

I think I'm much more comfortable living in a society with a few crazies running around shooting up schools from time to time than I would be living in a society where the government goes around "committing" people it deems to be crazy. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Anonymous bw December 18, 2012 8:43 PM  

I assume one is increased background checks to determine mental stability?

Like the one's given to THE MOST WELL-ARMED GOVERNMENT WORKERS IN THE WORLD, armed to the teeth with your Labor and for your own good?

You radical fundamentalist Statist nut jobs are so precious - and walking, talking fools.

As someone mentioned: Question 1. WHO DEFINES WHAT MENTAL ILLNESS IS AND IS NOT?

The first ones diagnosed and locked up should be the TrueBelievers who cannot even count: What are the 20th Century death toll numbers at the hands of Govt - APART from Wars - once the people were disarmed by the State?

It is armed, gun owners who are pro-life, not you.
How many instances did guns prevent a crime or save a life last year in the U.S.?


Anonymous RINO December 18, 2012 8:56 PM  

I blame homeschooling.

Anonymous bw December 18, 2012 9:00 PM  

While I find your consistency admirable though misguided, this is... probably not a message that's going to resonate with the public. matt

Cinco used the term "legitimately insane". In your moral and intellectual superiority and your own special condescending way, you failed to DEFINE who is and is not legitimately insane - EXACTLY who that should be and what the parameters are.

Are you getting any definitions from the "Health" industry? Have you looked into the "Mental Health" industry and who/what is behind it and what they have said?

There are people on here who are pointing to the deal and how it works - your Faith in the System and your ignorance notwithstanding.


Anonymous Jones December 18, 2012 9:02 PM  

How many instances did guns prevent a crime or save a life last year in the U.S.?

The problem with such radical libertarianism is it's also an argument for allowing gays to marry, for the abolition of speed limits, the legalisation of hard drugs — and indeed utter anarchy. At which point, we may indeed all need guns, completing the circle nicely.

Blogger SarahsDaughter December 18, 2012 9:04 PM  

As I was writing down info on some 12 gauges today I overheard a guy request some ammo and then say, "great, some psycho fuck shoots up a school and now I can't get my ammo."

Is this real? Have sales of specific ammo been restricted?

Anonymous Clay December 18, 2012 9:27 PM  

It doesn't matter. Crazy people are crazy people. You can be born with it. This guy was a freak. My daughter learned to shoot at about 10. Why isn't she crazy? I'm sure those drugs they are being fed doesn't help.

BUT. Sane folks will be taking the blame for this. They will outlaw "assault weapons", or put a homongous tax on ammo.

Anonymous Clay December 18, 2012 9:32 PM  

Um. Humongous tax, that is.

Anonymous Noah B. December 18, 2012 9:32 PM  

"The problem with such radical libertarianism is it's also an argument for allowing gays to marry, for the abolition of speed limits, the legalisation of hard drugs — and indeed utter anarchy. At which point, we may indeed all need guns, completing the circle nicely."

Government simply has no place defining or having anything at all to do with marriage, nor does it have any place telling a person what they should or should not ingest. If gays want to "marry" then who cares? You have every right not to recognize it as a legitimate marriage and to encourage others not to, as well. There's nothing radical about limited government.

Anonymous Sun Xhu December 18, 2012 9:33 PM  

The problem with such radical libertarianism is it's also an argument for allowing gays to marry, for the abolition of speed limits, the legalisation of hard drugs — and indeed utter anarchy.

BS.

All of those things, with the exception of "allowing gays to marry", were all perfectly legal in 1900. Are you saying that the USA was in a state of "utter anarchy", in 1900?

Everything you mentioned should be 100% legal, as far as the "state" is concerned. Marriage should have remained, and should be returned to, the purview of the respective churches.

Anonymous Noah B. December 18, 2012 9:33 PM  

"Is this real? Have sales of specific ammo been restricted?"

They probably just ran out temporarily. They're making more as we speak.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 9:41 PM  

More murderous thugs on the way

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 9:47 PM  

@DonReynolds

Those who wish to ban firearms from our society operate on the silly idea that if law abiding citizens are all defenseless, there will be less crime.

No one of any credibility or who holds any political power is suggesting that firearms be banned. There is talk of banning high capacity clips and assault weapons meant to kill lots of people.

The Right constantly uses this kind of scare talk and never mentions their claims are batshit crazy.

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 9:49 PM  

@cinco
if we let the government pick and choose which groups get own firearms, well, that's a slippery slope.

Exactly. We let a man and woman marry. Now look, two women want to marry. Slippery slope indeed.

The right to possess guns is so secure you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment to ban guns and slip down the slope you fear. Stop the crazy talk.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 18, 2012 9:51 PM  

Viva la PREEN, kameraden.

Anonymous Curtis December 18, 2012 9:56 PM  

(Reuters) - Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labeled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-mental-illness-diagnosis-idUSTRE8181WX20120209

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 18, 2012 9:59 PM  

Tad,

The polygamists, pedophiles and horse fuckers now want in in the marriage gig too. See what you and your fellow faggots started?

Anonymous Desiderius December 18, 2012 10:09 PM  

This particular Chronus (i.e. the Me Generation) is doing a particularly effective job devouring his own children. The Zeuses flail about ineffectually, some with disastrous consequences.

Especially when Rhea/Ops is playing for the wrong team.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 10:16 PM  

Another bat-shit crazy redneck, I guess

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 10:21 PM  

The right to possess guns is so secure you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment to ban guns and slip down the slope you fear. Stop the crazy talk.

The president's ability to kill foreigners is constrained by the constitution and citizens are supposed to be accorded due process.

I seem to recall those have fallen by the wayside.

Anonymous Elmer? (who's Elmer?) December 18, 2012 10:24 PM  

Wait a darn gone minute! .223/5.56 casings all over the place, and no comparable weapon near the alleged assailant, except for the trunk of his car? An AR within reaching distance of the alleged assailant, then maybe we have something concrete to go on.

I want to see the autopsies of the victims. Count the number of bullet holes in the victims and match against total number of casings found. Match ballistics of projectiles found, vs. casings again. And, speaking of autopsies, if the alleged assailant was near any kind of AR/HK/SKS/etc., any chance they found a glioblastoma?

What IQ did Lanza test at, at age 6? Where did he get in his mind, to dress as a Navy SEAL? Mask, body armor and all? I suggest all watch this. Just where do crazy people come from? Could an implant cause a glioblastoma?

Way too many questions here...

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 10:27 PM  

@STG58

No kidding!! Next thing you know the faggots will want to get married the caucasion way--with shotguns blazing and surrounded by trailer hitches. It's a slipper slope, I tell you.

Anonymous TheRealNoSpinZone December 18, 2012 10:28 PM  

Benevolent Government and it's True Believers strikes again for the good of the people:

Man Arrested After Telling Kids Santa Isn't Real

Gunman released from Jail hours before Colorado killings

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 10:32 PM  

@skeptic

Please...explain to me the political and cultural circumstances that will lead to a ban of all firearms. Please, explain this so obviously coming scenario. Or, you could just lock up the tin foil hat in the closet and slowly back away from the Temple of Doodlydoo.

Anonymous Tonkin Gulf December 18, 2012 10:32 PM  

the caucasion way--with shotguns blazing and surrounded by trailer hitches.

Project Paranoia much?

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 10:33 PM  

No kidding!! Next thing you know the faggots will want to get married the caucasion way--with shotguns blazing and surrounded by trailer hitches. It's a slipper slope, I tell you.

You seem to live in a fantasy world. I do not recall seeing any Caucasian weddings where there is gunfire, except perhaps for a 21-gun salute at the wedding of those crazy royals (you dissing the royals?)

However, there is this video of an Arab wedding where there is some shooting and blacks in the US and Africa seem to get feisty at weddings and in Detroit and Chicago.

Anonymous Mr Consistency December 18, 2012 10:34 PM  

There is talk of banning high capacity clips and assault weapons meant to kill lots of people.

For Government workers?

Are automobiles on the list?

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 10:37 PM  

@Mr. Consistency

Are automobiles on the list?

They will be...as soon as they are designed to assist in the pursuits of mass murderers.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 10:43 PM  

They will be...as soon as they are designed to assist in the pursuits of mass murderers.

Speak to Sebastian Thrun about that.

Anonymous rienzi December 18, 2012 10:44 PM  

Tad said: The right to possess guns is so secure you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment to ban guns and slip down the slope you fear. Stop the crazy talk.

OR: Justice Roberts suddenly has a vision in which the emanation of a penumbra informs him that only a militia can keep and bear arms. Four other justices agree with him, and, well, even you ought to be able to do that math.

OR: Maybe they'll just cut to the chase, trot out the commerce clause, and ban all guns and ammo outright. Why not? Its used for everything else under the sun.

Blogger IM2L844 December 18, 2012 11:06 PM  

How many instances did guns prevent a crime or save a life last year in the U.S.?

As of 1991:
Each year about 1500-2800 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding American civilians in justifiable or excusable homicides. There are more than 600,000 defensive uses of guns each year.

Anonymous dh December 18, 2012 11:11 PM  

I think I'm much more comfortable living in a society with a few crazies running around shooting up schools from time to time than I would be living in a society where the government goes around "committing" people it deems to be crazy. Are you suggesting otherwise?

This isn't exactly how it works. You have to petition the government to lock a person up, and they have due process. A lot of talk is that in fact too much due process.

It takes this process playing out before the person has to turn in firearms, typically. In the shooters case, the process appears to have been started but not finished it.

This is one area where most people could agree. Crazy people having access to guns is not a great idea. In most domestic violence law, there is an expedited review to get a restraining order, ex parte, and to have a fast process to have guns removed after specific actions have been taken (i.e. specific threats). From a freedom perspective it's not great - there is still the ex parte restraining order order, and all too often the hearing happens to fast for the alleged criminal to have good representation. But the process may be helpful in getting guns away from crazy persons.

From all reports the mother seems to have been doing her level best, but she probably erred in having guns no matter how secured available to the shooter. And she died for that error. Instead of running off to court, she should have run off to a gun range and paid to have her guns stored offsite while she worked on getting her son well, or hospitalized.

Anonymous Frank Brady December 18, 2012 11:15 PM  

Enough!

We are under purposeful and eventually lethal attack by incipient totalitarians. We must act to silence the Lie Machine or we and future American generations will die as slaves in the Third World Hell that collectivists have created on the ashes of the old Republic.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 11:28 PM  

How many instances did guns prevent a crime or save a life last year in the U.S.?

Another redneck opines on Do Armed Civilians ever Capture, Kill or otherwise stop Mass Shooters

Of course, if you rely on the main slime media for your information you will never know what has really happened.

Anonymous bob k. mando December 18, 2012 11:34 PM  

there oughta be a law restricting and licensing

...

white men:

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/12/18/white-lightning/#more-26359

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 11:44 PM  

The reality is that all this nonsense about gun control is meant to distract us from the details of Buggery in Benghazi.

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 11:45 PM  

@Rienzi
OR: Justice Roberts suddenly has a vision in which the emanation of a penumbra informs him that only a militia can keep and bear arms. Four other justices agree with him, and, well, even you ought to be able to do that math.

Indeed. And, angels may descend from heaven and bless us all with songs of mirth.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 18, 2012 11:47 PM  

No kidding!! Next thing you know the faggots will want to get married the caucasion way--with shotguns blazing and surrounded by trailer hitches. It's a slipper slope, I tell you.

The gay weddings probably already have the trailer hitches.

Anonymous Tad December 18, 2012 11:47 PM  

@Frank
Enough!

We are under purposeful and eventually lethal attack by incipient totalitarians. We must act to silence the Lie Machine or we and future American generations will die as slaves in the Third World Hell that collectivists have created on the ashes of the old Republic


Knock yourself out, Frank. Put on the tin foil top hat, drive to candyland with your cane in hand and save us all.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we'll continue on.

Anonymous realmatt December 18, 2012 11:54 PM  

What about the right to a trial, Tad? Is that not so constitutionally protected that the government couldn't possibly circumvent it? Did I imagine our president signed a bill stating they can kill American citizens they claim to be terrorists?

You're ridiculous.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 18, 2012 11:55 PM  

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Unfortunately, I have to wait until the 28th to get that nice new semi-auto .308 (Keltec Bulpup) with 20-round mags.

Anonymous myneckisnotred December 19, 2012 12:39 AM  

This one's too easy. God is even showing you the way:

On the same day puny weak nerd Lanza kills 26, Chinese man attacks 23 kids with a knife. How many were killed? Zero.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/14/chinese-children-knife-primary-school

If Lanza, a 90 lb weakling had only had a knife he wouldn't have been able to do much of anything. Instead he was able to kill 20 kids and 6 adults before the cops even showed up.

We're obviously not going to be able to lock up all the crazies or potential crazies but we can BAN GUNS. Sorry rednecks, you're just on the wrong side of logic on this one.

Anonymous Frank Brady December 19, 2012 12:58 AM  

Tad, people afflicted with your particular philia should be more cautious about accusing others of being out of contact with reality.

Anonymous oregon mouse December 19, 2012 1:00 AM  

I've read some people propose psych testing before purchase of a firearm in the same way that we have backround checks. The test is presumably a one time deal but a person can keep the gun for any number of years or decades. Mental illness is so subjective. If we can't keep psychopaths out of police departments how can these tests be at all accurate without elininating a substantional numebr of mentally healthy individuals from ownership? If you fail a test what recourse is there? Are you permanently barred from ownership? What about weapons the person already owns? Doesn't this violate the 4th amendment to require a psych test without cause simply as a prerequisite for excirsising your 2nd amendment rights?

Anonymous Koanic December 19, 2012 1:01 AM  

So we've got two deep-Thal Aspergerey kids, James Holmes and Adam Lanza, who when pushed ALLL the way up against the wall, with nowhere left to run or hide, decide to shoot it out.

I've talked to deep omega Thals. The pain and alienation they go through is unreal.

You can drug them up and call them crazy, then damn them when they go down shooting.

But it's a lie. Vox had it right the first time. The most dangerous man is the one who's got nothing to lose.

Both these guys picked rational targets. Even in the fog and the drugs, they knew exactly what they were doing. Some men just want to see the world burn. They were at that perfect age where a childhood of pain is converted into all-consuming hormonal rage at the world.

I think those who condemn these two don't understand the agony of Asperger's omega, the fragility of the soul under inexorable long term pain, the way the mind slips when given destabilizing compounds, and the impossibility of remaining sane without a support network and a line of retreat.

I would a million times rather not judge them, than earn the right by going through the same thing.

Anonymous Frank Brady December 19, 2012 1:03 AM  

Attention "myneckisnotred".

On May 18, 1927, Andrew Kehoe murdered 38 school children and 7 adults with dynamite bombs. He wounded 58 others. It was later determined that he had beaten his wife to death in the days preceding this attack.

Guns are the great equalizer, the tool that levels the field honest people are confronted by lunatics or thugs. For liberals, the concept of actually defending oneself against a violent attack is just too alien to think about. How sad.

Anonymous Desiderius December 19, 2012 1:16 AM  

"we can BAN GUNS"

We, kimosabe?

There is no relevant category to which the first-person plural could accurately refer.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 19, 2012 1:18 AM  

I would a million times rather not judge them, than earn the right by going through the same thing.

Yeah, me too. But there's lots of things I'd rather not do. I'd rather not have watched my dad die. I'd rather not have written a nephew out of my life for becoming a meth addict. Hell, I'd rather not have fired the nice, but unproductive, guy I fired last week.

But I did all those things because I had to. They were all better than the alternatives, and I'm thankful I had the courage to do them.

You don't offer a valid either-or, Koanic. My choice isn't between judging the broken Lanza or going through what broke him. My choice is between judging him or letting him kill a bunch of innocent kids. It's no fun judging. But it's the grown up thing to do.

Our society is a fucking shamble because too many chronological adults are too chickenshit to judge people. Maybe that's the real reason Obama won - he votes "present" just like the yellowbelly voters that elected him.

I'm sure Lanza's life sucked. Those little kids weren't the cause of it. Everybody willing to look the other way for fear of judging someone has a share of the blame for their deaths.



Anonymous J. Doe December 19, 2012 1:25 AM  

Not that I ever questioned it, but it's good to see that my instinctual loathing of faggots is justified. The creatures have no integrity, either intellectually or in any other aspect of their vile beings. This is human garbage that views itself as special and entitled to its repulsive existence.

Anonymous Koanic December 19, 2012 1:27 AM  

You don't get it. I regularly go through bouts of physical pain so severe I'd gladly blow my head off during them. I've lost relationships.

None of that compares to the long term agony an Asperger's omega like those two goes through. I've only brushed it, once or twice.

As terrible and irresistible as physical pain is, it eventually goes away and you forget about it. Getting shot is no big deal. What these kids went through is total soul destruction. That is what a wise man should fear.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 19, 2012 2:02 AM  

Involuntary admissions were significantly restricted during the decade of the '70s. Prozac was released in 1987 and quickly came into general use. The following data are offered for your consideration.

1920 to 1929. Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 45
1930 to 1939: Mass killing incidents: 0, Fatalities: 0
1940 to 1949: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 13
1950 to 1959: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 11
1960 to 1969: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 18
1970 to 1979: Mass killing incidents: 3, Fatalities: 28
1980 to 1989: Mass killing incidents: 5, Fatalities: 62
1990 to 1999: Mass killing incidents: 10, Fatalities: 102
2000 to 2009: Mass killing incidents: 22, Fatalities: 189

So far, from 2010 through 2012, there have been 10 incidents killing 118. If this trend continues, the decade 2010 through 2019 will experience 33 mass killing incidents and kill 393!

It has been more difficult to obtain firearms since 1968 (the Gun Control Act of 1968) then at any prior time in American history. Prior to 1968, it was possible to buy any available firearm (except for Class III full autos) by mail order. What has changed is involuntary commitment process and the availability of SSRI drugs such as Prozac. Although the data do not prove causation, they certainly suggest that the relationship needs further exploration. By the way, it was far more difficult than I first believed to find these data. A mass murder is defined as having at least 4 victims and did not include purposeful gang killings such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre which killed 7 people on February 14, 1929.

Anonymous T14 December 19, 2012 3:06 AM  

Kill every guy who fails to lose his virginity in high school. Be honest...we'd have prevented a fair amount of these.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 19, 2012 3:10 AM  

You don't get it. I regularly go through bouts of physical pain so severe I'd gladly blow my head off during them...None of that compares to the long term agony an Asperger's omega like those two goes through...As terrible and irresistible as physical pain is, it eventually goes away and you forget about it. Getting shot is no big deal. What these kids went through is total soul destruction. That is what a wise man should fear.

Which kids are you talking about? The aspies or the kids they killed? Anyway, the kids this fucked up shit Lanza killed are dead. You're right about that, Mr. Getting-Shot-Is-No-Big-Deal. They're dead and either in God's grace or else unfeeling in a hole in the ground, and either way they're not suffering.

But they had families you know. People who loved them and who's souls have just been spit on, kicked, and maybe poisioned. And then there's the rest of us in society who aren't buring a child, but who have to deal with the fallout from a horde of idiots who think the solution is to disarm all the decent, law-abiding folks because, well, hell, becuase that's easier than judging a fucked up kid like Lanza.

I'm sorry he got broken. I think the people who created the institutions that did that to him have a lot to answer for - his sorrow as well as the sorrow of the families who lost their little children to his deranged notion of getting even. But that doesn't make it okay to let him go, to let the next one like him go. I'm sorry he got broken, but unless we can fix him, we can't let him run loose.

I get it. I get it. I get it more clearly every day. It's moral cowards who not only won't make a choice but who hate anyone with the courage to do so that are the rot in our society. All the simpering anti-gun twits are too afraid to do anything to defend themselves, or their families, or anyone else. And they hate the people who aren't afraid because seeing them makes the cowards feel bad, inadequate, and they can't stand that.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 19, 2012 3:14 AM  

Frank Brady,

Where did you get your stats? They sound about right to me, and I'd love to re-use them but I know I'll be challenged on the source.

Anonymous 11B December 19, 2012 3:33 AM  

The right to possess guns is so secure you'd have to pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment to ban guns and slip down the slope you fear. Stop the crazy talk.

Actually passing a constitutional amendment is the difficult way. The way within reach is to have the Supreme Court reinterpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective, not individual, right to keep and bear arms.

In the two most recent cases in this area, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court was split 5-4 in favor of upholding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Conceivably when Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, or Alito retires, the possibility will exist to replace them with someone who would decide in favor of the collective right. The same fear liberals have that just one more conservative justice is all that is needed to overturn Roe and abortion on demand should be felt by all those who believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

This is the strategy that the anti-gun crowd will take because amending the Constitution is much too difficult. Given that Obama is here for four more years, Hillary is in the wings, and the GOP is dying in front of our eyes, I think it's only a question of when, not if, this is going to happen.

Anonymous Koanic December 19, 2012 3:33 AM  

Ditto, I'd like the source on those stats, particularly since you said they're hard to find.

I don't view death as a big deal. It would be great if I died. You go to God and are judged. I suspect he offers a better deal than what you'll find on Earth.

What I fear is prolonged torture, physical or psychological. Lanza and Holmes clearly suffered that.

There are plenty of despicable human beings. I don't think the Asperger's omega who, when hopelessly cornered, spree kills the world that's tortured him his whole life, qualifies.

The people who've tasted that existence know that there but for the grace of God go they.

The lesson is that pain goes up to 11.

Anonymous Rex Little December 19, 2012 3:46 AM  

Yeah, we could ban guns. And then no one would have them. I mean, look at drugs. We banned them, and now nobody ever uses heroin, or cocaine, or meth.

Oh, wait. . .

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, UNC PharmD December 19, 2012 4:00 AM  

What has changed is involuntary commitment process and the availability of SSRI drugs such as Prozac. Although the data do not prove causation, they certainly suggest that the relationship needs further exploration.

These SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drugs are fascinating. Everyone reading here can easily find more information online about what I'm saying here in this little blurb. There are other classes of antidepressants, like MAOIs (Monoamine oxidase inhibitor), SNRIs (Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), and tricyclics. Tricyclics are the old-fashioned antidepressants they used back in the 1950s. They've been phasing them out because of a lot of unwanted side effects, but they're still perscribed in certain instances, like when other drugs do not work. These drugs basically all do the same thing: increase neurotransmitter levels.

The general (Monoamine) theory is those with clinical depression have lowered levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain, so if you increase it, it should cure the depression.

Now, these drugs work. They do cure depression. They work very well at increasing the serotonin (and norepinephrine and dopamine). That's not the problem...

Here's the problem with the SSRI drugs:

- About 10-20% of the time, the person taking the drug does not respond to the SSRI. It does not help their depression. Why?
- If you are under the age of 24 and take them, they can actually increase the suicide rate and suicide idealization. The FDA first warned about this back in 2007. Again, why?
- In low levels of depression, these drugs are no better than just talking it out.
- Sometimes taking the drug can lead to a paradoxical effect, which actually makes the depression symptoms worse. Again, why?

Here's the best part: no one knows why. Doctors do not have a clue.


Why do people in that particular segment not respond properly to the SSRI? Obviously it is not the serotonin level in those cases. They are guessing. So what they do is label it "atypical depression" then switch the drug used. Or jigger with the dose. Or start using different drugs in combination. That's why you keep seeing those people in the news with a medication list a mile long.


These drugs are definite step up from lobotomies, but it's still like performing brain surgery with a brick.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 19, 2012 4:01 AM  

Mental evaluations prior to purchase or use would be an absolute disaster. Most all of the psychologists, sociologists and psychiatrists are more screwed up than their patients. Most people working in the mental health field do so because they think they fix their personal issues if they work in the field. Just about everyone I've encountered are far left, unicorn, puppies, kittens and rainbow chasing nut cases. If they are tasked to be the gun buying gate keepers, then they will find everyone nuts in one form or another.

What he said.

Anonymous daddynichol December 19, 2012 6:20 AM  

If Lanza, a 90 lb weakling had only had a knife he wouldn't have been able to do much of anything. Instead he was able to kill 20 kids and 6 adults before the cops even showed up....

We're obviously not going to be able to lock up all the crazies or potential crazies but we can BAN GUNS. Sorry rednecks, you're just on the wrong side of logic on this one.


800,000 Rwandans killed in just a few weeks mostly with machetes and knives would disagree. BTW, in Rwanda, the cops/military were the ones that had the guns. So much for the protection by authority.

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 genocidal mass slaughter of an estimated 800,000 people in the East African state of Rwanda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide)

Your "logic" is severly handicapped.

Anonymous T14 December 19, 2012 6:27 AM  

The man has a point. Lanza was a genetic failure in every regard. Sickly and weak. Mentally and socially broken. He should have been exposed and left to rot.

And yes, in that respect, guns are revolting. Sickly slavish men may exert power. Sickly slavish men haven't the foggiest idea how to use it. So they destroy.

I can think of nothing more beautiful than some blonde beast tearing this genetic mistake limb from limb.

Anonymous Koanic December 19, 2012 7:14 AM  

That's nonsense. Being genetically maladapted to a modern diet and modern pharmaceuticals has nothing to do with actual genetic fitness.

Anonymous zen0 December 19, 2012 7:23 AM  

MARSEILLES, France (Reuters) - A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.

A court in Marseilles said Daniele Canarelli, 58, had committed a "grave error" by failing to recognize the public danger posed by Joel Gaillard, her patient of four years.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad December 19, 2012 7:25 AM  

signed:

Ryan Lanza
Mario Lanza
Sancho Panza
George Castanza

Anonymous Noah B. December 19, 2012 7:41 AM  

"Please...explain to me the political and cultural circumstances that will lead to a ban of all firearms."

The same ones that have led to de facto total bans in the UK, Australia, New York, and Chicago. The left is lying about their true objective, as usual, so there is no reason for anyone to cooperate with them on anything.

Anonymous Noah B. December 19, 2012 8:01 AM  

I hope I'm stating the obvious to most here, but given the consistent track record of brazen lies told by both the media and the government, as well as the incredible factual errors that have surrounded this mass murder, there's no good reason to accept what we're being told as the truth.

This should be especially applicable when citizens are threatened with prosecution for reporting things the government considers to be "misinformation."

Anonymous Josh December 19, 2012 8:11 AM  

There are plenty of despicable human beings. I don't think the Asperger's omega who, when hopelessly cornered, spree kills the world that's tortured him his whole life, qualifies.

Yes, it does.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 19, 2012 8:34 AM  

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,”

Saw that coming. It was obvious to anyone once the fact that his mother worked there.

And for all intents and purposes, it could very well have been true. Doesn't justify the killing spree, of course, but he may not have been wrong in his assertion.

Anonymous dh December 19, 2012 8:55 AM  

Guns are the great equalizer, the tool that levels the field honest people are confronted by lunatics or thugs. For liberals, the concept of actually defending oneself against a violent attack is just too alien to think about. How sad.

Compare Japan. They have virtually no hand guns. Their gun violence rate, including suicide (which is abnormally high in Japan) is close to 100 times lower than the US. Yet people still can easily defend themselves against violent attack. It's possible because the attackers don't have guns.

Guns create an arms race. The next logical step being proposed is to arm school teachers and workers. The next step up in the arms race.

Any society, especially one as culturally sick as the US, has crazy people. Crazy people with access to guns (via theft, or via purchase) are a bad idea.

I am happy to have the 2nd amendment protecting the right to bear arms, but it's not useful to lie and say "you can't ban guns and expect it to reduce or stop gun violence". It certainly is possible. It's been done all over the world. It is possible.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 19, 2012 9:09 AM  

Compare Japan. They have virtually no hand guns. Their gun violence rate, including suicide (which is abnormally high in Japan) is close to 100 times lower than the US. Yet people still can easily defend themselves against violent attack. It's possible because the attackers don't have guns.

Japan is a largely homogenous society. When comparing it to the US, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Anonymous Josh December 19, 2012 9:17 AM  

Japan may not have gun violence, but it has all sorts of other weird shit.

To reduce gun violence in the US, we'd have to greatly increase the prevalence of tentacle porn, school girl underwear vending machines, geisha houses, etc.

But becoming more like Japan would also increase our odds of getting attacked by Godzilla.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 19, 2012 9:25 AM  

We'd also have to increase our racism and kick out the Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. Diversity encourages violence after all.

Anonymous Noah B. December 19, 2012 9:41 AM  

"Yet people still can easily defend themselves against violent attack. It's possible because the attackers don't have guns."

You commies have been recycling the same old, worn out, discredited talking points for 30 years now. Japan has a racially and culturally homogeneous society and is not comparable to those that are more "diverse." In the US, the homicide rate WITH KNIVES ALONE is higher than the homicide rate in all of Japan. Clearly, something here is different besides the availability of guns. If we look more closely, what we find is that among whites in the US, the crime rate is actually slightly lower than in Western Europe where there is less access to guns.

But let's stop cherrypicking for a moment and talk about the track record of gun control in other countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Burma, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Rwanda, and Pakistan? Let's discuss the fact that after confiscatory gun control measures were enacted in the UK and Australia, homicide rates increased.

"It certainly is possible. It's been done all over the world. It is possible."

Just keep clicking your heels together and telling yourself that "it's possible..." while ignoring observable reality, ignoring the fact that gun control has literally never delivered the results its advocates promised, and just hope that things will magically work out this time. And if your loved ones are being raped and slashed to pieces in the other room, just tell yourself that it isn't a part of your reality, and proudly recall that you chose the path that was right, even if it didn't work out perfectly this time.

"Crazy people with access to guns (via theft, or via purchase) are a bad idea."

At least, as long as they don't have state-issued badges, right?

Anonymous JP (real one) December 19, 2012 9:45 AM  

Another interesting take:

http://americanvision.org/6757/why-is-there-no-national-conversation-about-the-divorce/

Anonymous FrankBrady December 19, 2012 9:49 AM  

To those who asked for the source of the stats quoted below, I developed them after hours of perusing various lists, news accounts, and published articles (all of which are available on the Internet). Be aware that list content was not consistent from source to source, in part because the definitions of a "mass killing" were not always provided. For my purposes, an event was listed if at least four were killed.

This list is actually my second effort to develop these numbers. After the first attempt I realized that my list contained some significant omissions, including the St. Valentine's Day Massacre (which killed 7) and the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing which killed 168 people. Neithe does it include government killings, such as the 1993 Waco assault on the Branch Davidians that in the end killed a total of 86 people (including ATF agent).

What is absolutely clear is that something changed dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s--and it was not an increased accessibilityy to firearms.
Involuntary admissions were significantly restricted during the decade of the '70s. Prozac was released in 1987 and quickly came into general use. The following data are offered for your consideration.

1920 to 1929. Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 45
1930 to 1939: Mass killing incidents: 0, Fatalities: 0
1940 to 1949: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 13
1950 to 1959: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 11
1960 to 1969: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 18
1970 to 1979: Mass killing incidents: 3, Fatalities: 28
1980 to 1989: Mass killing incidents: 5, Fatalities: 62
1990 to 1999: Mass killing incidents: 10, Fatalities: 102
2000 to 2009: Mass killing incidents: 22, Fatalities: 189

So far, from 2010 through 2012, there have been 10 incidents killing 118. If this trend continues, the decade 2010 through 2019 will experience 33 mass killing incidents and kill 393!

Anonymous Noah B. December 19, 2012 9:54 AM  

@Frank

September 11 is also notably absent from the table. No guns used there. Another big change that occurred in the 1970s was the explosive growth of the media.

Anonymous Mina December 19, 2012 11:28 AM  

11B is right on target here.

"Actually passing a constitutional amendment is the difficult way. The way within reach is to have the Supreme Court reinterpret the 2nd Amendment as a collective, not individual, right to keep and bear arms.

In the two most recent cases in this area, DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Court was split 5-4 in favor of upholding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual's right to keep and bear arms."

After I queried 11B a couple of days ago about our status here in IL on anther thread, this is what he told me. I went out and researched it and actually found most of the useful information in support of his statement on the anti-gun / pro-gun-control sites.

They are still in awe as to how these two landmark decisions "changed the landscape" about guns in America and they are bound and determined to get justices on board that will work hard to re-interpret the 2nd amendment back to what it was before these two decisions ... that the right to bear arms is only granted in the context of "people" being part of a "state maintained militia" ... interpreting the words "the people" in the 2nd amendment to mean "the state".

IL in particular has a history of violating the rights of its people and is a very liberal state. Essentially everyone in the path of decision making here is a liberal and gun control focused / friendly. The current mood of country coupled with 11B's logic here doesn't bode well for IL or probably any other liberal-leaning states.

Anonymous JP (real one) December 19, 2012 11:32 AM  

"We'd also have to increase our racism and kick out the Hispanics, blacks, and Asians. Diversity encourages violence after all."

Asians assimilate quite well. Of course, the other minorities try to get them to hate/blame whitey and vote for Obama. But look at mostly white/Asian communities in the U.S., Cananda and other places, and you'll always find it largely peaceful and productive.

Anonymous Mina December 19, 2012 11:54 AM  

To speak to "bans" which someone else brought up.

Banning "things" never works and never has worked in all of history. If there is a demand, there will be a supply and no amount of Government intervention or legal deterrent will stop it.

Prohibition (banning of alcohol.)
Drugs (esp pot, cocaine, hashish, X, etc - "low caliber" recreational stuff which can be easily compared in effect and risk to alcohol which is perfectly legal.)
Pit bulls (any number of breeds or types of dogs which can be lumped together by "looks" not behavior.)

Any time we've tried to "ban" something a new, illegal supply chain and all of the necessary support structure to support it has emerged.

The upshot was instead of decreasing crime and removing the banned substance from the face of the earth, there were substantial increases in crime in totally new areas ("unintended and unforeseen consequences") and a huge proliferation of the banned items into all walks of life.

Banning "things" does not work. It is far more logical to look back at history and conclude that one must acknowledge the existence of the "thing" and put measures into place that would suppress demand and reduce the potential negative impact its "use" might have on society.

Anonymous JP (real one) December 19, 2012 12:02 PM  

1920 to 1929. Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 45
1930 to 1939: Mass killing incidents: 0, Fatalities: 0
1940 to 1949: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 13
1950 to 1959: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 11
1960 to 1969: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 18
1970 to 1979: Mass killing incidents: 3, Fatalities: 28
1980 to 1989: Mass killing incidents: 5, Fatalities: 62
1990 to 1999: Mass killing incidents: 10, Fatalities: 102
2000 to 2009: Mass killing incidents: 22, Fatalities: 189

If this proves anything re: gun control laws and mass killings, it's that they've grown together. Compare buying a rifle in previous decades to buying one today. An FBI background check to buy a Ruger 10/22 at Wal-Mart? Gimme a break.

Blogger JohnG December 19, 2012 12:10 PM  

@DH

I don't think you can use Japan as a good comparison. Almost every way I can think of, they're 180 degrees different than us... from love of country, ethnicity, xenophobia, discipline in work, discipline in school. Even their criminal organizations are disciplined (compared to the black/Mexican gangs here)...

Anonymous JP December 19, 2012 12:14 PM  

Yeah, and I love how people bring up Japan but not Switzerland, where citizens are heavily armed.

Blogger Monsignor Scott Rassbach December 19, 2012 1:25 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Monsignor Scott Rassbach December 19, 2012 1:26 PM  

The source of this information is now backing away from it:

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2012/12/source-disputes-claim-that-adam-lanza-was-about-to-be-committed-story-should-never-have-run/

Anonymous 11B December 19, 2012 2:34 PM  

1920 to 1929. Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 45
1930 to 1939: Mass killing incidents: 0, Fatalities: 0
1940 to 1949: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 13
1950 to 1959: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 11
1960 to 1969: Mass killing incidents: 1, Fatalities: 18
1970 to 1979: Mass killing incidents: 3, Fatalities: 28
1980 to 1989: Mass killing incidents: 5, Fatalities: 62
1990 to 1999: Mass killing incidents: 10, Fatalities: 102
2000 to 2009: Mass killing incidents: 22, Fatalities: 189


Assuming the above figures are correct, that comes out to about 468, or roughly one year's worth of murders in Chicago. Yet these events generate more attention and emotions than those nameless, faceless victims in Chicago.

Note that the overwhelming number of victims in Chicago are black, yet white liberals only seem to get up in arms about guns when whites are killed in a mass shooting. I wonder how blacks feel knowing that their votes help to push the white liberal agenda, yet those same white liberals seem to care little about the violence wrecking the black community.

Anonymous Stilicho December 19, 2012 3:30 PM  

And if you let the confirmed crazies run around free until they kill someone, you're assured that eventually some of them are going to do it.

Who's watching Tad today?

Anonymous Jack Amok December 19, 2012 5:32 PM  

Oh, I'm sure he's on his meds Stilcho.

Anonymous Van December 19, 2012 8:22 PM  

If you consult the UN's data on gun homicides (google it), you'll see that countries with the fewest guns per 100k people have the highest gun homicide rates. The US 1st in guns and 20th in gun homicides. Data available is for 2007 - that same year, the US white was 0.6 per 100k (similar to other white nations) while the US black rate was 12.7 and the latino rate was 6.1.

Anonymous Professor Wade Ormont December 20, 2012 2:15 PM  

Say, Koanic? Yeah, the normals have been getting on my nerves all my life too. I'm feeling especially grumpy today with the flu. What say we get together with Stickwick and have her check my math on this really cool new catalytic nuclear reaction I just discovered?


(Sure enough, when I first read "Judgment Day" as a kid, I saw myself as Professor Ormont. -- Justthisguy)

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts