It's a very common scene. A well-armed man goes off the deep end and no one expected it.
How can we predict that, they ask. How could it be prevented? It's not rocket science to conclude that fewer guns would have an immediate impact on these spontaneous incidents, the crimes of passion and many of the suicides.
What's your opinion? Doesn't this case call into question Lott's contention that more guns equals less crime?
Please leave a comment.
Right. Just one fewer gun in this situation and the outcome would have been entirely different.
ReplyDeleteIt's not how many are out there, but who has them.
The way these stories usually play out is that the initial stories have angles along the lines of 'who could have guessed' and 'he was always polite and friendly.'
ReplyDeleteA little more digging will indicate neighbors and relatives knew something was very off about him.
If you recall the case of NRA member Christopher Speight who murdered 8, including 4 children--the early stories were that Speight was a nice guy who was quiet and polite. Several news cycles later, we learn folks knew NRA member Speight was a gun nut who had severe mental issues.
Jade: “Several news cycles later, we learn folks knew NRA member Speight was a gun nut who had severe mental issues.”
ReplyDeleteSo after a guy kills a bunch of people, we have people come out and say “I always knew he was crazy”. Amazing.
Jadegold:
ReplyDeleteIf you recall the case of NRA member Christopher Speight . . .
Care to present your evidence of Speight's NRA membership, or would you prefer to be (again) exposed as a lying fraud?
By the way, I have no idea if Speight was an NRA member, or not, and don't really care. The evil actions of 1 man don't reflect in the slightest on the 4.3 million people who might--or might not--happen to be in the same organization, not one in hundred-thousand of whom would fail to be outraged and sickened by Speight's actions.
ReplyDeleteVan Dyke, Thanks for that link. I think I'll use it for a post today entitled "weak-assed dgu of the day."
ReplyDeleteZorro, when Jadegold, who can certainly speak for himself, says "NRA member" about somebody, I often take it to mean "not necessarily a member of the NRA but a legitimate gun owner up until the time of the shooting."
I may be wrong, maybe he means it literally. But the point's the same. The group you belong to, I know you hate that, but the group you belong to called gun owners, is comprised of a certain percentage of irresponsible characters and mental defectives.
Why those of you who don't fit those descriptions would get defensive, I don't understand. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Zorro, when Jadegold, who can certainly speak for himself, says "NRA member" about somebody, I often take it to mean "not necessarily a member of the NRA but a legitimate gun owner up until the time of the shooting."
ReplyDeleteAh, yes--that makes sense--Jadegold clearly would benefit from your practice of just inventing new meanings for words and expressions (so that "NRA member" now means someone who hasn't necessarily had anything to do with the NRA in his entire life). After all, if you can arbitrarily change the meanings of words, without explanation, you can't really be accused of lying, can you?
Maybe I should try that. Let's see--"Brady Campaign member Josef Stalin," or "Brady Campaign member Pol Pot," or "Brady Campaign member Adolf Hitler," or "Brady Campaign member Fidel Castro."
Yeah--that is kinda fun, I guess.
Zorro, when Jadegold, who can certainly speak for himself, says "NRA member" about somebody, I often take it to mean "not necessarily a member of the NRA but a legitimate gun owner up until the time of the shooting."
ReplyDeleteThis is the weakest excuse for JadeGold's behavior I have seen yet. Words have literal meanings. JadeGold is able to (I assume) figure out the literal meanings of the words and use them properly. To not do so would be dishonest and would make him a liar. You can reconcile this in your own mind however you see fit, but it does not change the fact of what JadeGold is: a pathological liar.
I see Jade has declined to present his notional evidence of Speight's NRA membership.
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Zorro, I sure did miss you around here.
ReplyDeleteHow about this? When Jadegold says "NRA Member" maybe he's just painting with a broad brush.
You guys love to get up on your high horses and bitch about the literal meaning of words, but that's just the same old bullshit argument as the one about the letter of the law - either he's a criminal or he's not.
The fact is there's a large gray area in both which can sometimes be captured quite nicely with a broad bruch stroke.
How about this? When Jadegold says "NRA Member" maybe he's just painting with a broad brush.
ReplyDeleteI can accept that. And when we refer to you as an 'unconvicted criminal' and to JadeGold as a 'pathological liar' we are just painting with a broad brush too. Does that sound fair? Either that or we can all act like adults and actually mean what we say.
How about this? When Jadegold says "NRA Member" maybe he's just painting with a broad brush.
ReplyDeleteSure--that works. So when someone refers to any Muslim he sees as an "Al Qaeda member," he's just painting with a broad brush, right? No harm, no foul.
. . . same old bullshit argument as the one about the letter of the law - either he's a criminal or he's not.
What the hell does that mean? How can there be a point in between criminal and not criminal? Was a law broken, or not?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is some kind of halfway point--"partial criminality"--do we send the semi-perpetrator to semi-jail?
Partial jail, that's very funny.
ReplyDeleteBut, what are you actually saying, there's no gray area? Is the gun owner who breaks the slightest of laws to be relagated to the one single category of "criminal?" Is you world view really that black and white?