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.