He was described as aloof and introverted, a prodigious researcher and academic writer. Certainly not someone suspected of violent tendencies.
“I never even heard him raise his voice to his kids or Marie, and my daughter, who baby-sat for them, said the same thing,” said Bob Covington, who lived next door to the family for nine years.
Covington said Zinkhan was an introvert who revealed little to those in his Bogart subdivision. He wasn’t terribly unfriendly, Covington said; he just seemed to be somewhere else.
Before coming to UGA, he taught at the University of Houston where some students remember him fondly. Richard Tansey, who studied at the university in the late 1980s and early 1990s, took some of Zinkhan’s classes and went to him for advice.
“George created a nurturing environment,” Tansely told the UGA newspaper, the Red & Black.
“I would have never gotten a Ph.D. in marketing without George.”
Zinkhan joined UGA in 1994 as head of the marketing department in the Terry School of Business. He was already a published academic and had left an ex-wife and three children behind in Texas.
Does anyone else think that's significant? The fact that he'd already had a wife and three kids in Houston. It sheds some light on the, at least up till now, inexplicable act of leaving his two young kids with the neighbor after the shooting and taking off, don't you think?
The only thing I can come up with is that, unknown to anyone, Professor Zinkhan had a problem with anger. And perhaps also unknown to anyone, he suffered from the same insane idea that so many suffer from today, the idea that in certain situations violence with a gun is the answer.
Whatever triggered his violent attack, whether his wife had been cheating on him, or if she had decided she no longer loved him, or perhaps it had nothing to do with her and was about one of the others he killed, whatever it was, his response was over the top. I see this type of excessive response just slightly differently from that case we discussed the other day in which someone being wronged decided that blowing away the offending party is the answer.
To me, this is one of the hidden problems with the pro-gun movement. The ones who are within the law and the ones who commit cold blooded murder have exactly the same mentality. "If you offend me enough, I'll blow you away."
What's your opinion? The comments which come will probably demonstrate this same thinking, I predict. My challenge is to the pro-gun person who knows he doesn't suffer from this mental illness, if I can call it that, to dispassionately describe the difference.
Please leave a comment.
"To me, this is one of the hidden problems with the pro-gun movement. The ones who are within the law and the ones who commit cold blooded murder have exactly the same mentality. "If you offend me enough, I'll blow you away.""
ReplyDeleteIt not the same mentality at all. There is a big, big, big difference between the two.
Only a cold blooded murderer would blow someone away over an offense.
Those who are within the law will only blow someone away if they pose a threat to their life, the lives of their friends and loved-ones, or in some states their property.
It's the difference between justifiable homicide and non-justifiable homicide. And the courts are pretty good at differentiating the two.
If there were no guns, he'd have still killed her because he obviously lost it (see: insanity). Knives, strangulation, drowning, poison, etc. There was plenty of murdering going around before guns. Just sayin'
ReplyDeleteAztecRed, Thanks for the comment, but I have to laugh when you say, "Those who are within the law will only blow someone away if they pose a threat to their life, the lives of their friends and loved-ones, or in some states their property.""...or in some states their property," is the part that cracks me up. Do you live in one of those states? Do you agree that it's OK to blow someone away for that?
ReplyDeleteMike - Do you believe that if you catch someone in the act of stealing your property, that you should be able to prevent them from doing so?
ReplyDeleteWhat about armored car drivers? They're armed and are allowed to be so by law. (they're treated like law enforcement) In reality they're armed to defend money (property) by deadly force if necessary.
And as was already said, there's a significant legal difference between murder and justifiable homicide.
The ones who are within the law and the ones who commit cold blooded murder have exactly the same mentality. "If you offend me enough, I'll blow you away."
ReplyDelete...
My challenge is to the pro-gun person who knows he doesn't suffer from this mental illness, if I can call it that, to dispassionately describe the difference.
AztecRed said it, and I'll restate:
The murderers (and not just the odd "he snapped" surprise murderer, but also the career criminals who commit the overwhelming majority of murders) will "blow away" another person over an offense. The lawful gun owner will "blow away" the offender only if the offense is a deadly threat to an innocent person. It's a very specific line.
Do you agree that it's OK to blow someone away for [treatening property in states that allow it]?It depends on the context. In such a state, I _might_ shoot to protect property that was necessary for my family's livelihood, but it would be a really tough call. If the people of a state have decided they want to be able to make that decision for themselves, I don't think it's my right to tell them otherwise. If they don't think it's right, they're welcomr to change the law.
Personally, I live in New Jersey, where it's flatly illegal for a civilian to use force to protect personal property under any circumstances (protecting corporate property is another matter). Even if it was legal, though, I don't think I could ever shoot somebody to save my TV. Under the right circumstances, I _might_ go as far as to confront a thief with my gun at the ready and tell him to stop, but if he laughed at me and kept carrying my stuff out the door, I'd have no choice but to back off and wait for the cops to show up.
Aztec Red and Michael said, "The lawful gun owner will "blow away" the offender only if the offense is a deadly threat to an innocent person. It's a very specific line."The only problem is things are not that clear in the real world. What is perceived as a deadly threat will vary tremendously from person to person. There are those trigger happy gun owners out there who shoot first and justify later. And, I readily admit, the majority is comprised of well-intentioned gun owners who have to make that split-second decision about whether there is a lethal threat or not. Some of them judge wrongly and although there would usually be no way of knowing, they fired unnecessarily.
ReplyDeleteThese possibilities, and more, are what I call the gray area and make that line of yours anything but clear.
As quite a few people have tried to point out, we simply don't have "trigger-happy gun owners" causing danger here. The _criminals_ are causing danger, by selfishly putting innocent people in the position of having to decide whether to shoot or risk serious harm or death.
ReplyDeleteThe risk is very easily avoidable, but some criminals choose to create that risk anyway. Sometimes, they suffer the consequences of creating that risk. I just don't understand how you can think that's more tragic than depriving innocent people of the means to defend themselves against stronger people who _don't_ have qualms about using violence to take from the innocent.
Some of them judge wrongly and although there would usually be no way of knowing, they fired unnecessarily.
Bottom line, I don't judge people based on evidence they didn't have when they made their decisions. We're human beings, trapped on a one-way trip through time, without the benefit of knowing then what we know now. I don't say cops shouldn't be armed because that cop shot a kid whose gun turned out to be a toy, and I don't judge civilian gun ownership based on the tragic end of a criminal who decided to act just like a deadly threat, but totally didn't intend to hurt anybody.
If you break into my house, you may get shot. That's a risk you're choosing to take, and I won't disarm myself to make breaking into my house safer for you.
Michael says, "As quite a few people have tried to point out, we simply don't have "trigger-happy gun owners" causing danger here. The _criminals_ are causing danger, by selfishly putting innocent people in the position of having to decide whether to shoot or risk serious harm or death."In other words, we do have "trigger-happy gun owners," it's just that we can't blame them for the shootings (you said "danger"). Is that it?
ReplyDeletePlease tell me if that's it, because, I don't think I can accept such a suggestion.
MikeB - How did you possibly get that gun owners are "trigger-happy" from Michael's statement?
ReplyDeleteHe simply said that if a criminal initiates deadly force against an armed victim that blame for the consequences (including being killed by his intended target) falls on the CRIMINAL, who is the initiator of unprovoked violenceIf someone kicks in my door and I shoot him, it's his damn fault because absent his felony forced entry into my home he wouldn't have been shot.
Using defensive violence against someone who has initiated unprovoked deadly force against you is not being "trigger-happy" rather it's a basic natural instinct.
Mike W., said, >"Using defensive violence against someone who has initiated unprovoked deadly force against you is not being "trigger-happy" rather it's a basic natural instinct."I agree, if the guy has in fact "initiated unprovoked deadly force." But, it sounds to me like you wouldn't take any chances on determining that. At the first sign of aggression, if the guy's committing a crime, you'd shoot him dead. To do anything else would be to fail in your responsibility to protect yourself and society, isn't that what you say?
ReplyDeleteWith that philosophy, a young guy like you might very well kill a few of them before you're done. And if you do, I'd suggest that in some of those cases there really was nothing like lethal threat. I call that "trigger-happy."
Yeah, Mike, I run around armed & ready draw on anyone who acts "aggressive" towards me......
ReplyDeleteI cannot for the life of me understand why some folks cling to this ignorant characterization of people.
I suspect it has something to do with their own conduct & lack of morals / self-control or they attribute special powers to firearms, treating them as much more than just a tool made of plastic & steel.
Your characterization of me makes sense if you actually attach such violently coercive powers to an inanimate object.
Do you attach the same characterization to everyone who's an LEO, since they all carry guns too?
I find that many people who share your view do not know many (if any) gun owners or they've never known an average guy with a CCW permit.
Some people cannot differentiate between predatory and protective violence, or they see agents of the state (LEO's) as the only ones who can legitimately be violent but protective.
You should read this essay.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2004/06/its-most-important-that-all-potential.html