Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Fascinating Murder Trial of Alvaro Rafael Castillo

They say he was obsessed with Columbine and with guns. In the original report on MSNBC, they printed the e-mail he'd sent to the principal of Columbine right before his crime spree.

“Dear Principal,” the e-mail read. “In a few hours you will probably hear about a school shooting in North Carolina. I am responsible for it. I remember Columbine. It is time the world remembered it. I am sorry. Goodbye.”

To me that's enough right there to prove diminished capacity, but I'm afraid it won't be that easy. In the original reports and in the trial, fatherly abuse was mentioned as a factor, too.

The letter described a father who was verbally abusive and sometimes hit members of his family. The letter ends with, “I will die. I have wanted to die for years. I’m sorry.”

His other obsession was with guns. In the CNN video report, he's said to have slept with a shotgun and named two of his guns. He named them! Is it possible for a teenage boy to act like that and the parents not be aware of it? Do you think the dad, who ended up dead, was himself a gun enthusiast? That's the only way I can understand young Alvaro's having been allowed to keep his guns in spite of the fact that he'd been hospitalized already for threatening suicide. What do you think?

So, yes, I blame the father. I blame the whole system that allowed this sick boy to get to this point. And especially I blame the gun culture in America, the sick gun culture which encourages people, even sick people like this one, to keep guns.

What's your opinion? Do gun owners have nothing to do with this? Do gun owners have nothing to do with the 50 or so gun suicides that take place every single day in America? Is this just a small price we pay for the sacred "right?"

Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. I don't think naming guns is too strange. I've named two of mine: Liberty and Justice. They're sisters if you can't tell.

    But this is an interesting predicament. Mikeb, what gun control laws do you think would have prevented this? What common sense legislation is the NRA blocking that would have stopped this tragedy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What would have prevented it? Well, given the atmosphere in America, nothing. Nothing can prevent these incidents from repeating themselves over and over again until we, as a country, have had enough of the NRA, and gun lobby and gun owners pushing their agenda on the rest of us. Until, then, there's nothing that can prevent this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's wrong with naming guns? I have Helmke's Lament, Bloomberg's Complaint, Sugarmann's Sorrow, etc.

    Well, given the atmosphere in America, nothing. Nothing can prevent these incidents from repeating themselves over and over again until we, as a country, have had enough of the NRA, and gun lobby and gun owners pushing their agenda on the rest of us. Until, then, there's nothing that can prevent this.

    Guess it's with us forever, then. The "gun culture" isn't going away, Mikeb--at least until the plasma rifle culture, or something like it, comes along to replace it.

    Good to see you wishing for new attitudes, rather than new laws, though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why is it that gun owners always throw up their arms and scream "We can't have any more laws" and "Nothing will work." I say "PSsssst! We haven't tried EVERYTHING yet!"

    Obviously the solution is to pair up young troubled teen gun owners with older gun owners. The older gun owners must be forced to be responsible for the younger gun owners crimes and misdemeanors. Don't train your little gun owner right? Go to jail, do not collect $200! It's just like being responsible for your children, only now you get to be responsible for those who hear your message and take it to heart, not just those you breed.

    That's one law that might work. Think of it as being based on the "Big Brother" program.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "What would have prevented it? Well, given the atmosphere in America, nothing. Nothing can prevent these incidents from repeating themselves over and over again until we, as a country, have had enough of the NRA, and gun lobby and gun owners pushing their agenda on the rest of us. Until, then, there's nothing that can prevent this."

    MikeB, care to tell me how banning guns entirely would have prevented this?

    I mean shit like this happens all the time in gang areas, as well as I'm sure England.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obviously the solution is to pair up young troubled teen gun owners with older gun owners. The older gun owners must be forced to be responsible for the younger gun owners crimes and misdemeanors.

    What is a "troubled teen gun owner"?

    And how do you "force" someone to be responsible for someone else? Can I "force" someone to be responsible for the driving of the old lady I was following this morning? 'cause she was all over the road.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What would have prevented it? Well, given the atmosphere in America, nothing. Nothing can prevent these incidents from repeating themselves over and over again until we, as a country, have had enough of the NRA, and gun lobby and gun owners pushing their agenda on the rest of us. Until, then, there's nothing that can prevent this.

    What will happen then? What, specifically, happens when the gun owners agenda disappears?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The tendency to lay the blame at the feet of the NRA and Lawful Gun Owners, is the reason gun owners defend themselves with such vehemence.

    Look, all it takes is a little common sense. Cars kill more people than guns. Cigarettes kill far more people than guns and genocide put together! (And by the way the current administration wants me to chip in for the health care of smokers and overweight people!)There are more Law enforcement personnel in California than there are soldiers in Afghanistan. (Uhmmm... you mind telling me which is more dangerous again?) So how about you (general you) get off gun owner's backs, and do something that will really save lives.

    The best example I can show is the results in England. Boy Scouts aren't allowed to carry their pocket knives anymore, they've been banned. Murder rates are higher than ours, and they do it with guns, knives, sticks, cricket clubs, bottles, bricks, cars, pipes, plastic bags, you name it!

    That kid was a loon. The father is a loon. Back in the day, the community would intervene and the results would have been far different. But the national diaspora has seen to it that we are all strangers to each others.

    Now the liberals are against a good hanging. By golly what we need is a little common sense in this Nation of ours!

    Best regards,
    Albert
    Instincts and Hunting
    Real Men Hunt

    PS: Your's is an entertaining blog. Your posts are professionally put together with just enough antagonism to get people responding, but not so much to be disrespectful. Good job.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "And especially I blame the gun culture in America, the sick gun culture which encourages people, even sick people like this one, to keep guns."

    Can you make a distinction between the law-abiding gun culture and the criminal gun culture?

    Try this...

    "And especially I blame the drug culture in America, the sick drug culture which encourages people, even sick people like this one, to use drugs."

    Am I attacking the gang-banger on the street corner selling heroine or the elderly woman taking blood pressure medicine?

    Can you see the difference?

    Focus on the criminal and leave everybody else alone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just so you know...

    People name their vehicles and it's no big deal. People name boats and it's no big deal. People name power tools and it's no big deal.

    I have named several of my guns and it's no big deal.

    You are trying to argue that his obsession with Columbine CAUSED him to name his guns, which is a huge pile of BS.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Albert, Thanks for that compliment. I've looked at your blog, and coming from you I really value what you said.

    TomB, You gotta work on the sense of humor, man. Mr. Anonymous presented a tongue-in-cheek solution, possibly a thought provoking one, but you took it totally seriously. Sometimes, we're just not that somber around here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Drunk drivers kill a lot of people, and there is a lot of emphasis on "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." (In other words, gun owners need to play a more active role in the lives of those younger gun owners who might go bad).

    There is also a lot of emphasis on suing the bartender when someone drives drunk. What's the difference between suing the bartender and suing the clerk who sold Joe Blow his gun and his bullets?

    I think sensible gun owners need to take more responsibility for those who aren't as sensible. It's your hobby, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Says Anon:

    I think sensible gun owners need to take more responsibility for those who aren't as sensible.

    Since you brought up the (rather weak) drunk driver analogy, should sensible drivers be held responsible for the actions of not so sensible ones?

    It's your hobby, not mine.

    Safeguarding my family, my home, my life, and my liberty isn't a "hobby," genius.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think sensible computer owners need to take more responsibility for those who aren't as sensible. It's your hobby, not mine.

    I think sensible dog owners need to take more responsibility for those who aren't as sensible. It's your hobby, not mine.


    Maybe if we were allowed to teach firearm safety in school, we wouldn't have as many irresponsible owners.

    Maybe if we didn't have laws that made it financially and administrative difficult to own a firearm, we would have more people out there with experience skills and knowledge.

    Maybe if ever city, village, town and county were required to have public ranges, people would be more knowledgeable in how to handle firearms.

    Maybe if we didn't have cities that completely ban ownership (Chicago) we would have more responsible owners.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is also a lot of emphasis on suing the bartender when someone drives drunk. What's the difference between suing the bartender and suing the clerk who sold Joe Blow his gun and his bullets?

    Suing bar owners is allowed because in most cases it is obvious that the person they are serving more drinks to is drunk. Likewise, a dealer (or private individual) selling a gun to a someone he knows is not allowed to possess (criminal, drug addict, domestic violence, etc.) is a federal offense. (HINT: That means it is already illegal!) So why do we need another law for this?

    Now, if you want to sue a bar tender because sober Jack who just entered the bar buys a pitcher and takes it to the corner where slobbering drunk Joe decides to chug it for fun and then later gets in his car and injures someone, go ahead. I would guess that the jury will laugh you out of the courtroom if the judge doesn't throw out your lawsuit as frivolous.

    ReplyDelete