…and this is a 
Tragedy in Northern Illinois
Category: Evil
Posted on: February 15, 2008 8:50 AM, by PZ Myers
I don't have anything to add to the story of the lunatic who opened fire on a freshman science class, but here's a place you can talk about it without the taint of piety that's getting introduced into all the news stories right now.
The killers who have been executing these school shootings are all mentally ill, sick people. I suspect that the reason schools have been targets is that they are full of optimistic young people who are exercising their opportunity to learn and preparing for a productive place in society … and the hateful, petty pissants who believe guns and violence are the answer resent that. Let's not see any more proposals that violence in reply is the answer, it isn't — it's an echo of the same problem.
Comments
This seems to be a weekly occurance in this country.
The need to go out with a bang (fifteen minutes of celebrity) appears to drive so many of these shootings.
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 8:54 AM
After the VATech shooting, I found myself looking at my classroom differently, wondering how many students would fit in the AV closet, how quickly I might be able to move a heavy desk in front of the door. I'd forgotten about those thoughts until last night, when I thought about my current classroom and thought "we'd all be dead." I know that the odds of it happening on my campus and in my classroom are nearly nil, so I try not to overreact, but those same odds existed for the classroom at NIU as well.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 8:59 AM
My heart goes out to the families who lost a child/sibling/parent. Once again, I was fortunate...my sibling who teaches at NIU was not in that building. My child at Virginia Tech was quite upset last night as xe loves my sibling.
While not a anti-gun freak, I do wish there were more controls on access. Legally, I have to pass a driving test, both written and in a vehicle, to have a driver's license. Why can't we require the same minimal requirements for access to gun ownership? Like stolen cars, it won't stop the criminal element, but it might slow down those who purchase only to kill.
Posted by: Dawn | February 15, 2008 9:03 AM
We may have hit the point where there are so many of these things that the shooter doesn't become a celebrity. In fact, this guy hasn't been identified yet. I don't know what drives these people. It seems they're angry at the world and probably themselves. And they have no trouble getting guns.
Posted by: Lana | February 15, 2008 9:05 AM
How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat, the the shooter was an atheist, that liberals made it happen? or am I already too late.
Posted by: Lorax | February 15, 2008 9:05 AM
Lorax,
I am pretty sure that stuff is indeed already been said.
But for some people that is probably easier than looking at why people carrying out shootings like this, and even more importantly, looking for ways of identifying those who may carry out such shootings and intervening before they do.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:14 AM
Oh, gosh. My students have their first test today! If you don't hear from me again.........
Posted by: Science Goddess | February 15, 2008 9:15 AM
A tragedy, sure, but a highly avoidable one. You guys need to have sensible gun laws, and fast.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 9:19 AM
"Let's not see any more proposals that violence in reply
is the answer, it isn't- it's an echo of the same problem."
If I was to ascribe to this opinion, and I happened to be
in the audience with a registered permit and a licensed
pistol on my hip, and drew it and shot the creep dead
before he got off the second shot, then my use of violence
in reply would negate the saving of the subsequent lives?
Can you realistically be serious in condemning a return
of violence to prevent further bloodshed other than the
perpetrators? Is this sound reasoning in the face of such
blatant circumstances? To be able to prevent or lessen
loss of life and not act on that impulse with the means at
hand because of the stated opposition to return violence
makes one wonder if we should just let violence be a one-
sided situation and let it run rampant without reply
because it might further more violence. The scenario is
too scary and all that it portends.
Posted by: Holbach | February 15, 2008 9:29 AM
Here's something from the Tribune:
"The gunman had established himself as an authority on prison systems, having co-authored a manuscript on self-injury in prison and the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States. Both papers were written under the guidance of Jim Thomas, a professor emeritus at NIU and a nationally renowned criminal-justice expert."
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 15, 2008 9:31 AM
Lorax@6 -
adolescents and young men (and they all come from this category) can find times tough: hormones are rampant, you find it perhaps difficult to get on with girls (and/or boys), your grades are all so important and could define the path for the rest of your life....it can all rebound into vengefulness. 99.99% manage to cope with this. Of the remainder, some have access to weapons and are used to using them, and of these some just flip out...
In short, I don't know the answer either, but my thoughs go to the parents of the victims, and of the perpetrator as well.
Peter
Posted by: Peter | February 15, 2008 9:34 AM
To #8,
What sort of "sensible gun laws" do you propose? How, precisely, would they help to mitigate the risk of a school shooting such as this one? (Since you are proposing to reduce our liberty, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why such restrictions are needed for the greater good.)
Are you suggesting that people willing to commit murder can be deterred by making (legal) guns harder to purchase, or by putting up signs saying "no concealed carry here"?
I'm no "gun nut", and I definitely don't advocate arming every college student, but I get pretty rankled at the bias against those of us who choose to undergo training and background checks to become responsible, law-abiding concealed carriers.
Posted by: Kevin DeGraaf | February 15, 2008 9:35 AM
Holbach,
What a cop out.
Clearly sophisticated answers to problems escape you. Has it not occurred to you to wonder WHY all these shootings are taking place ? And has it not occurred to you to want to find out HOW to stop the person from starting shooting ?
These people are mentally ill. They need people to recognise that they are suffering from mental illness and get them the help they need. Waiting for them to start shooting and then killing them is a total abrogation of the duty of care we owe to others.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:38 AM
The Phelps clan has gleefully said they'll be visiting the campus. I won't link to them because I don't want to get my browser dirty.
It's not like any of us are surprised.
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 15, 2008 9:40 AM
Kevin DeGraaf,
The data is pretty simple. The more firearms there in a society the more people get killed by them.
Compare the number of people killed by firearms in the US to the number in the Europe. Compare the number of people killed in Switzerland, where every adult male below retirement age has an army issued rifle at home, with the number killed in the UK.
Can you see a pattern ? I can, and it does not support your claim.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:42 AM
Gun control won't solve the problem. I could easily take out more people with my car in 5 minutes than have been killed in the last two shootings combined.
Taking away their access to guns won't solve the underlying problems. Someone who's lost the will to live and want to take as many others with them as they can, won't be stopped by whether or not they can get a gun.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 9:42 AM
How about a moratorium on the reporting of the grizzly details of these incidents? How about we deny the "15 minutes of fame" to these individuals? This is four in one week. How many got the idea from the first ones? I for one, do not want to know his name or care how many of what kinds of guns he had or "what drove him" to it.
Posted by: Tom | February 15, 2008 9:44 AM
Number of notable School shootings during the last 10 years
USA = 24 Strict Gun control laws : NO
W.EUROPE = 3 Strict Gun control laws : YES
(excl. Nordic)
No comment.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 9:46 AM
"Gun control won't solve the problem. I could easily take out more people with my car in 5 minutes than have been killed in the last two shootings combined.
Taking away their access to guns won't solve the underlying problems. Someone who's lost the will to live and want to take as many others with them as they can, won't be stopped by whether or not they can get a gun."
It is true that if someone intent on killing as many people as possible before killing themselves is unable to get hold of a firearm then they will find something else.
However there is also a flaw in this argument and it is this: Firearms are more effective. With an automatic weapon it is far easier to kill a load of people than if you are armed with a knife. In addition stabbings tend to be less fatal that shootings, seeing as how the heart and lungs are protected by the rib cage.
So your simple assertion is only simple if you don't actually think about it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 9:48 AM
Holbach - your response is insane. Period. You're suggesting students should be allowed to carry weapons. It was a large lecture hall -- lets say 20 out of 200 students came into such a hall carrying concealed weapons. Shots are fired -- and all 20 pull out their weapons and begin firing, too. How many bodies do you think would end up caught in the crossfire? The solution to violence is never more violence. All that does is raise the death count.
We live in a truly sick society that encourages people to resort to violence as their first solution and not their last. Unless we can somehow change that collective attitude tragedies such as this one will continue to occur on a regular basis.
Posted by: Nan | February 15, 2008 9:49 AM
#8, please inform me as to how stricter gun laws would have prevented this from occurring.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 9:50 AM
The other problem with allowing students to be armed is how do you determine who the "bad" shooter is? Some gunman opens fire from a hallway and runs to the next classroom, and fifteen ramb students pull uns to go after him, what do you think is going to happen next? You're going to have a full on gun battle between fifteen wouldbe heroes.
I am against going to any campus which would allow its students to carry deadly weapons.
Posted by: Robert | February 15, 2008 9:51 AM
"While not a anti-gun freak, I do wish there were more controls on access."
Americans are strange.. even people who think there should be more controls on guns seem to think being totally against public gun ownership would make you a freak.
Posted by: Liam | February 15, 2008 9:52 AM
Matt,
You've never seen a university campus between classes? The sidewalks are 10-people wide and 1/10 mile long sometimes, depending on the university. Like I said, one determined individual in a car could do more damage than someone with a semiautomatic weapon than the last two shootings combined.
If they own an automatic weapon, finances can be ruled out as a problem.
And I asserted nothing about knives.
Posted by: wildlifer | February 15, 2008 9:56 AM
Shooter :
Steven Kazmierzczack
student_department_name: School of Social Work
student_program_name: MSW:Social Work -UIUC
student_level_description: Graduate - Urbana-Champaign
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 9:59 AM
Holbach should not mistake his personal masturbatory fantasy about killing people in a righteously heroic way for any kind of serious social policy.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Strange, the shooter seems to have been VP of the University's "Academic Criminal Justice Association".
http://www.sa.niu.edu/acja.html
Steve Kazmierczak
Studied prison suicidal behaviour...
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:04 AM
This was fairly salient: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040170
Posted by: Lev | February 15, 2008 10:04 AM
Once again, people in the UK are shrugging their shoulders and wondering why people in the US are shocked and surprised by yet another shooting of this kind. Once again, some of the earliest comment comes from the gun lobby. When will the US do something effective to cut gun crime?
Well, what do you do? Do you try to create a safer culture of gun ownership as seen in Canada or Switzerland, and never mind the deaths in the mean time? Even so, a large proportion shootings are accidental or suicide-attempts.
Taking guns out of the equation via legal controls clearly won't solve the underlying drive to violence, but it will prevent access to a particular type of easily concealed, lethal weapon.
The fact that legal, sane, law-abiding, gun owners will be deprived of a current liberty has to be balanced against the fact that thousands of people are killed and wounded by legally owned firearms - murder, accident, and suicide - and thousands more killed, wounded, and threatened with illegal firearms. Lest we forget, many illegal firearms were once legally owned, or were at least sold in good faith by someone legally allowed to do so.
It is very sad, and somewhat baffling that nothing seems to change.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
"You've never seen a university campus between classes? The sidewalks are 10-people wide and 1/10 mile long sometimes, depending on the university. Like I said, one determined individual in a car could do more damage than someone with a semiautomatic weapon than the last two shootings combined."
Sounds like a reason for restricting cars to car parks to me. What ever happened to walking anyway ?
And is case it escaped your notice, cars cannot enter buildings.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
wildlifer@24
..but they don't: give us a case. A reason could be that it would be difficult to dispose of themselves as well.
No, they always choose guns...
Peter
Posted by: Peter | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
RE: #16
Really? It seems odd, then, that we don't see more mass murders committed with automobiles, considering their relative availability compared to guns. Such reasoning suggests that limiting access to automatic weapons, dynamite or similar lethal military hardware is pointless because because someone inclined to murderous violence will simply choose another means. Perhaps. Yet a simple pragmatic analysis suggests that the potential for large-scale massacre is directly related to what weaponry a killer might bring to bear, and how simple it is to use. No one is suggesting that banning firearms under specific circumstances will address the underlying psychological issues that might prompt someone to go off on a murderous rampage, but limiting their potential for mayhem by making access to guns difficult is hard to argue with.
Posted by: drb | February 15, 2008 10:08 AM
My heart goes out to everyone who lost loved ones in this horrific attack.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:11 AM
I've always suspected it's because school is probably the institution they feel is most responsible for inflicting their mental illnesses on them. I know I did.
Posted by: Dunc | February 15, 2008 10:11 AM
holbach, you should become a sales rep for Taser International. Just don't consult the site Taser of the Day.
http://www.taser.com/pages/VideoDetails.aspx?videoid=63
The best way to become of victim of gun violence is to have a gun at home or to frequent family or friends that have guns, as that is where you find most shootings.
Probably tasering will follow the same route.
Posted by: bernarda | February 15, 2008 10:18 AM
Wildlifer @ #16
I think you've been playing too much of the original GTA.
You shoot a gun, the bullet's gone, you shoot again, another bullet's gone. Neither you nor the gun are significantly (physically) altered and you can keep on shooting.
You drive a car into someone, the car will get dented. How do you hit just them and not the street furniture so that you put the car out of action? How do you ensure they don't run away? How do you get up to a great enough speed to actually kill them, while ensuing that you hit them full-on and don't just wing them?
You're talking nonsense.
to Ken de Graaf @ #12 - so you like to go around carrying a concealed gun? Then you are a gun-nut. Just 'cos you're not as extreme as Charlotn Heston or some wacko militiamen in montana doesn't mean that you're not a self-important prick who thinks he has a right to shoot people.
Johan @ #21 - If you don't have access to a gun, then you can't get hold of it to shoot people with it. Are you a retard or just a blowhard?
We've got teenage arseholes who think they're big men here too. They stab one person and get taken down. Yours shoot 10 or more.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM
Tasering does have the advantage that it is less lethal than shooting someone, although I do get cross with the police here who are introducing tasers saying they are non-lethal.
A disadvantage is that in order to use one properly you need training, and should also know how to administer CPR.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM
#31, if you mean that no one uses a car to attack college students, it *has* happened. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4775544.stm
And in response to #5's "How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat" - that would be a while. For one thing, most gun permit laws that I'm aware of require that you be at least 21 to carry. And deterring some of these shootings doesn't require that all be carrying - it only requires that the person thinking about committing mass murder have reason to think they'd be unsuccessful. And all that requires is the fact that some of the students and faculty could be carrying. That wouldn't deter everyone, but a least they wouldn't be going in *knowing* that they are the only armed person on campus.
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:23 AM
I have never shot a gun. Don't plan to, and I will never own a gun.
However.
I believe that citizens MUST have the right to own guns as long as their police and military do.
Posted by: John | February 15, 2008 10:24 AM
wildlifer,
Aside from the fact that your argument is something of a red herring - just because something else in dangerous, doesn't justify the widespread, easy, availability of cheap firearms - you are wrong to think that a car is just as dangerous, even in the hands of a determined individual.
Ever hit a dog (accidentally) in your car? Seen the damage it does to the drive systems? Additionally, adult humans tend to be thrown over the bonnet (hood)and into the windscreen, potentially causing injury to the driver. Pavements (sidewalks) are rarely completely unobstructed. Mowing down multiple people, and killing them, is unlikely to be as easy as you imagine.
Of course, you're also assuming that the glamour of gun use and ease of violence with firearms has no compounding effect on the commission of the crime. That the killer will simply switch from a method of close-range, directed killing with all of the accompanying elements of control, power, and fear-inducement, to such an uncertain and clumsy method of execution isn't a sure thing.
Still, if you're going to argue that control is unnecessary because other methods of killing exist, then you're not on very firm ground.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 10:25 AM
Number of notable School shootings during the last 10 years
USA = ************************ Strict Gun control NO
W.EUROPE = * * * Strict Gun control YES
(excl. Nordic)
Wildfier, you're right, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe that Gun control would reverse that trend.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:25 AM
To pick up on what Tom P said.
In the UK there has only been one incident where a mentally ill person entered a school and started attacking people. Thankfully he had been unable to get hold of firearms and used knives. The teacher in the classroom was badly stabbed but survived and a number of the children received non life threatening injuries. Not one person died.
The reason he had been unable to get hold of firearms was because the law on gun ownership had been tightened following a couple of incidents where a person who legally owned firearms went on a killing spree. Since then there has not been a similar incident.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM
jenl1625 @ #38, did you read the article you posted?
Here's the 4th paragraph "No-one was seriously hurt in the incident, which the FBI is probing."
He drove a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd and no-one was seriously hurt.
Hey, Wildfire, you see that? Not as easy as you think, is it?
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Kevin DeGraaf:
I'm sure you a responsible, law-abiding gun owner. However given the number of people who can buy or easily steal guns who are neither of these things do you not see how people might think that the current legal controls on gun ownership are not doing the job they are supposed to?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Just 'cos you're not as extreme as Charlotn Heston or some wacko militiamen in montana doesn't mean that you're not a self-important prick who thinks he has a right to shoot people.
So, wanting to have a way to defend myself if I'm attacked makes me "a self-important prick who thinks he has a right to shoot people". Nice. Because I always thought of myself as a woman who thought ahead and wanted a way to protect myself if it came to it. No "saving the day" fantasies, just something small enough to conceal yet big enough to set back a guy who's coming at me.
Of course, despite having a permit, I can't carry at work, so most of the time I'm still unprotected. . . .
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:30 AM
"I believe that citizens MUST have the right to own guns as long as their police and military do."
The US military has access to all kinds of fancy stuff.
Using your logic we would allow people to have their own F16s complete with cluster bombs.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:30 AM
With the talk of arming students and faculty, which always comes up:
If I were living in a conceal-carry state, my syllabus would make it clear that firearms are not allowed in my classroom. I would make that clear on day 1. If students have issues with that, they'll need to find another class to take. That would even go for the police officers I've had as students.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 15, 2008 10:30 AM
John (#39) You want the public to be bale to shoot the cops? Is that not just a tad extreme?
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:31 AM
John,
"I believe that citizens MUST have the right to own guns as long as their police and military do."
Gee, I really wonder how I can survive here in Europe, with all these nasty policemen running around with guns, and I have no right to have one myself.
Actually, thinking about it, I'm going to demand the right to own a nuclear weapon, if the military can have one, and GW is the guy who decides, I need protection !
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:32 AM
From Yahoo News:
The newspaper said the man had helped write papers on self-injury in prison and on the role of religion in early U.S. prisons, work that earned him a dean's award.
Posted by: ChemBob | February 15, 2008 10:33 AM
John,
Do you own a tank, jet aircraft, portable missile systems? Do you have the powers to enter the homes of individuals against their will, detain them, and search for evidence of crime?
No? But the police and military have these things...
jenl1625,
Why would they care? How many of these people live to face justice? They're almost always suicidal, and they have the element of surprise on their side.
Also, how many panicked shooters are going to kill innocent people - either in the crossfire of a shootout between the assailant and armed private citizens, or because they thought that someone was armed and dangerous. Who will pay, morally and financially, for such mistakes?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 10:34 AM
Jenl1625 @ #45 - you're right, I was generalising. In your case it makes you a paranoid prick who thinks she has the right to shoot people.
Posted by: tom p | February 15, 2008 10:35 AM
With the licensing system for driving a car currently in place in America, over 40,000 people a year are killed by cars. And this is with "car control" - a system where your license can be revoked if you are proven to be dangerous - is in place. That's the equivalent of 10 of these shootings every day.
How many more people would die if the motor industry took up the call, "it's everyone's right to drive a car, no licensing for drivers! Driving licenses infringe my liberties!". Sure, you'd get people who were safe in their cars, who would do driving lessons, and learn how to responsibly drive a car. Those aren't the people you'd be worried about though, and there'd be an awful lot more car-related deaths.
Gun control won't "solve the problem", no; the underlying problem is that mentally disturbed people exist, and it is apparently all too easy for them to get access to guns.
There's been a spate of shootings over here in Manchester in the UK recently; but the response here is not, "arm everyone in Manchester"! Manchester has both a gun problem, and a social problem: in that potential powder keg, you don't want to increase gun ownership, you want to deal with the social problem!
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | February 15, 2008 10:35 AM
then by all means let's make sure any and all police officers who respond to such an incident leave their weapons behind at the station first. wouldn't want them to act violently.
empathy and sympathy are very much called for, but a lack of forethought won't help.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 10:36 AM
However given the number of people who can buy or easily steal guns who are neither of these things do you not see how people might think that the current legal controls on gun ownership are not doing the job they are supposed to?
What do you suggest? Saying that those of us who have permits can't own guns because they might be stolen? Saying that those of us who have permits should turn in our guns, despite knowing that the people who carry illegally won't be turning in theirs?
Personally, I think we need to do a better job of policing the *criminals* rather than trying to place further controls on the law-abiding. And we need to do a better job of preventing mass murders no matter what the weapon.
Per # 13 above: These people are mentally ill. They need people to recognise that they are suffering from mental illness and get them the help they need. Waiting for them to start shooting and then killing them is a total abrogation of the duty of care we owe to others.
That seems like a pretty good place to start, to me. . . . Stop worrying about the fact that it was a gun that was used to do the killing, and start worrying about how to identify people who are approaching the breaking point before they get there. Start looking at ways to help people with serious mental illness. Start looking at ways to fix our healthcare system in which mental health is considered both too expensive and too subjective, so it isn't emphasized and even people with health insurance get only rationed amounts of care. Start looking at ways to fix the unintended side effects of confidentiality laws that say that even if you think this person's mental illness is reaching the point where he could be a danger to others, you have to be really, really careful about who you share that information with.
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:37 AM
How can one be VP of the University's "Academic Criminal Justice Association", and go on and become a major criminal ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:38 AM
The killers who have been executing these school shootings are all mentally ill, sick people. I suspect that the reason schools have been targets is that they are full of optimistic young people who are exercising their opportunity to learn and preparing for a productive place in society ... and the hateful, petty pissants who believe guns and violence are the answer resent that.
PZ, what the hell? I'm sure you're angry about this shooting, but try to engage your critical thinking skills a little. You really think the shooters all hold/held some kind of lifelong belief in the Power of Guns and Violence? You think they felt hatred for people trying to get an education? Don't quit your day job. Leave the psychological analysis to me, or to someone else with a little actual expertise and experience in the area.
And the gun control types in this thread are cracking me up. Every single one of these school shooters walked right through gun control to put people in the ground or in the hospital. And no one could do anything about it until it was far, far, far too late, because they were abiding by the law and not bringing guns to school. In every instance the cops were called. In every instance they came, bringing their perfectly legal guns. In every instance it was, again, far, far, far too late.
The only way I can think of to reliably and safely stop a shooter is to shoot him (or her) as soon as you possibly can. I would love to talk it out instead; I would so very much prefer that over harming another human being, however crazy -- but I don't believe I could rely on that to work. Other methods of physical incapacitation would require me to get physically near someone who has a gun, and I don't think I could rely on that approach either.
Gun control is not the answer to gun violence, because, get this, gun violence is illegal. People who choose to engage in it are already voluntarily breaking the law. The people who do not break the law are left with no way to respond except to hide, pray, and run. In the face of a determined shooter (like the one at VA Tech), those don't work very well.
To put it another way, picking a school as a place to shoot people works amazingly well, just now, because no one else around you is likely to shoot back. Is that so hard to understand? You ever notice that people don't go and shoot up police stations, shooting ranges, gun stores, or military installations nearly as often as school, universities, and malls -- places where no one is allowed to have a gun?
And noting that a preponderance of guns is correlated with a higher rate of gun violence fails to take into account that most people in the US are not allowed legally to carry guns. Where gun control is liberalized and more people carry, interestingly enough, you find that the Wild West does not ensue. (When's the last time you heard national news about gun violence in Vermont? And f'r chrissake, Switzerland? Not exactly a hotbed of gun violence. And the UK? Check those gun-crime stats again, remembering that the handgun ban was in 1997. E.g, page 48 of this Home Office report.)
The people who are willing to pay the fees, take the tests, get the background check and follow all the rules are, strangely enough, not the people who are interested in just shooting other people for the hell of it. You also find that gun violence in communities with higher rates of legal carrying is diminished. Why? I would guess that, sensibly enough, people know that the odds are not as good that no one will shoot back. That seems rational enough to me.
Posted by: Luis | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
How soon before we hear that all students should be packing heat, the the shooter was an atheist, that liberals made it happen? or am I already too late.
Of course you're too late:
http://christiancrosstalk.blogspot.com
Horrible but true. The blogger doesn't even claim that the guy was an atheist. "Whether this shooter was an atheist or not is irrelevant. It's the atheistic influence in our society that has lead to the dehumanizing despair in otherwise mentally ill individuals."
Posted by: APP | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
"then by all means let's make sure any and all police officers who respond to such an incident leave their weapons behind at the station first. wouldn't want them to act violently.
empathy and sympathy are very much called for, but a lack of forethought won't help."
I think you are missing the point here.
No one I think will deny that if someone is in the process of shooting people then something needs to be done, and that may well mean killing them.
But do not kid yourself, it is NOT a solution to the problem. By the time the shooting starts we have already failed. The solution is to stop people going around shooting in the first place. Of course having proper mental health services in place is expensive and bullets are cheap.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:43 AM
Jenl1625 @ #45 - you're right, I was generalising. In your case it makes you a paranoid prick who thinks she has the right to shoot people.
Seriously? What is it that makes you think I'm paranoid? I live in a city where people get shot every day. I grew up in another city where people get shot every day. In both cities, people also get stabbed every day, and women get kidnapped and disappear with distressing regularity. In many cases, a few years later a body is found. In one case, a woman disappeared from her apartment (less than a mile from where I worked) in the middle of the night. Neighbors heard a scream but didn't do anything about it. If they ever found her, it was years later.
So in what way is it paranoid to think I may need to defend myself?
And as for that "right to shoot people," well - yeah. I think that if I have a genuine reason to believe that the person attacking me is likely to kill me and leave my body in a ditch somewhere, I think I *do* have the right to defend myself. You don't? Really?
Tell me, do you think that person has the right to kill me? Do you think I have the moral duty to let it happen rather than kill the person? On what basis? Would you passively allow yourself to be killed, or would you fight back? Would you allow your spouse or child to be killed - would you hold back because you have no right to kill the killer? Or do you think the police will get there in time to save you? After all, it'll only take them what, 4 or 5 minutes to get there? At best. I'm sure the attacker will take longer than that to get around to killing you.
And no, all of the above is NOT just because people have access to guns. It's because people have access to knives, and to baseball bats. It's because some people are bigger, and stronger, and are willing to attack others.
Posted by: jenl1625 | February 15, 2008 10:46 AM
Works pretty damned well in the UK. Indeed, in the UK we've found that police officers + firearms all too often = major f*ckup.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | February 15, 2008 10:46 AM
To those who naively believe that control of access to guns would have prevented the NIU shootings, ask yourself how effective the War on Drugs has been. It is illegal and a felony to sell cocaine, and our prisons are full of people who have, but this has had little if any effect on the quantity of cocaine that is sold. Why would it be different with guns? The shooter at NIU had NO criminal record, NO history of mental illness, and there was NOTHING a background check or waiting period would have done to prevent this. Making guns totally illegal would NOT stop people from killing each other with guns.
negentropyeater
Secondly, comparing Western Europe and America is invalid. The social mores and accepted behaviors are totally different and the mindsets are not comparable. Compare France with Italy, or Germany with Austria, but none with the USA. Just because there are fewer school shootings in Western Europe, which has strict gun control laws, with a greater number of shootings in the USA, which has lenient gun control laws, does NOT imply a cause and effect. Anyone who has travelled extensively in Europe would know the comparison is invalid.
Matt Penfold
Trying to identify potential shooters is a cause with high merit, but this is only part of the solution. What happens when you miss someone and they go on a rampage? What are you "non-violent" proponents saying, to just stand there and hope the police arrive before you're dead? In any event, the police would shoot the guy just as dead as someone with a concealed carry permit, IF they arrived in time, which is unlikely. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be a gun. Somebody could jump the guy with a knife or whack him over the head with a chair. It's still violence, and it would save lives. Advocating not using violence to stop violent behavior is an untenable position.
The question that needs to be answered is how can we improve SECURITY so that there is some mechanism to stop people from committing these acts. Simple door locks with access control would have stopped the NIU shooting, and someone sneaking around the back of buildings with a shotgun will eventually get noticed. I work in a chemistry building, and there is NOTHING to prevent someone from walking in my lab and stealing a large bottle of NaCN. No security whatsoever. The reason? Because it is too expensive.
Sorry if I sound overly worked-up. My sister works at NIU and had to take responsibility for the safety of two dozen children between the ages of 2-5. Her fear has scared me.
Posted by: Rob | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Is is one of theirs, [fundie death cultist] or one of ours, [Darwinist]?
He is from Polk county Florida, smack in the middle of the fundie heartland. Chances are it was one of theirs.
Really, these murderers are just seriously crazy people. We are forced to play the blame game because the religious bigots always, always, claim it was an atheist or biologist. Usually they are just Making Stuff Up and most of the time they are wrong.
I'm sure some fundies have already made the claim on zero evidence.
PS Polk county is a fundie stronghold where evolution is not taught in schools, being regarded as a satanic idea. Watch the wingnuts blame Darwin anyway.
Posted by: raven | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM
I hate to sound like a smug European slimeball, but some of you Americans are truly insane. To pretend that banning guns makes you a freak, well, that is freaky. In Sweden it's punishable by law to carry a knife in your pocket. I don't see a pack of ugly, smelly Swedish old men complaining about their freedoms being raped. You know why? Because nobody with their head on the right way would want to carry a fucking knife to a campus anyway!
Imagine having a debate on weather or not people should bring guns to school to protect themselves from being killed by other people that also bring guns to school.
"England, where no one has guns; fourteen deaths. United States -- and I think you know how we feel about guns; whoo! I'm getting' a stiffy -- 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone."
-Bill Hicks, lost American genious
Posted by: mirshafie | February 15, 2008 10:48 AM
Just a quick note on something that has been alluded to here many times:
Switzerland has the highest rate of gun death in Western Europe.
Only Finland and Estonia are higher when all of Europe is considered.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | February 15, 2008 10:50 AM
The problem seems to be that criminals - or future criminals who, since gun shop owners are not typically clairvoyant, are rather difficult to identify pre-crime - seem to have regrettably little difficulty in purchasing guns legally as things currently stand.
Where precisely do you imagine people who carry guns illegally get them from at the moment?
Given the number of stolen guns currently circulating in the US, it might be nice if gun laws mandated and enforced rather more stringent security procedures around stored guns than seems to be the position at the moment. If they did then maybe there wouldn't be so many criminals with guns.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:52 AM
By that logic the Wild West should have been the safest place in 19th Century America. Since it clearly was not I think said logic might have a hole in it somewhere.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 15, 2008 10:56 AM
"Trying to identify potential shooters is a cause with high merit, but this is only part of the solution. What happens when you miss someone and they go on a rampage? What are you "non-violent" proponents saying, to just stand there and hope the police arrive before you're dead? In any event, the police would shoot the guy just as dead as someone with a concealed carry permit, IF they arrived in time, which is unlikely. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be a gun. Somebody could jump the guy with a knife or whack him over the head with a chair. It's still violence, and it would save lives. Advocating not using violence to stop violent behavior is an untenable position."
I am not advocating that nothing be done to stop the person shooting, although I do question the idea of people carrying concealed weapons. I seriously doubt such people have the same level of training as the police. I know in the UK that in order for a police officer to carry firearms they need to pass a tough selection process, then undergo several months of training and then will have to undergo further training and testing on a monthly basis. As a result the police in the UK have a good record when it comes to firearms. (The de Menezes case was a total cock-up but not one made by the officers who carried out the shooting).
How many of those who think allowing members of the public to carry firearms would require them to undergo such rigorous training ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM
that'd be a great idea, were it possible. noone has given me any reason to think it is possible, though.
what we can do is minimize the frequency of such things. but as you mention, decent mental health care is expensive, and the results of it take time to manifest... whereas passing new gun control laws is very cheap indeed, and the lawmakers get to take credit right away.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 15, 2008 10:58 AM
Luis,
"Gun control is not the answer to gun violence, because, get this, gun violence is illegal. People who choose to engage in it are already voluntarily breaking the law."
I think we knew already that killing people in a school shooting is illegal.
It's about wether we want to make it easy for these people to get access to a Gun or not.
Here where I live, in Spain, or many other European countries, I have no idea how I'd be able to get hold of a Gun. No shops, no place to go to find one, can't get it via mail, on the Internet, how do I find a dealer ? I'm not saying it's impossible, but for someone who is psychologically unstable and who has never had a Gun or shot one before, that additional difficulty can be in some cases (not all, but a significant proportion) a sufficient barrier to stop him from acting.
How do you explain the huge difference in occurences of School shootings (and in General, assaults by Gun) between Europe and the USA. Just because the American society is intrinsically more violent than the European ? Well, if it's true, all the more reason to make it even more difficult to get hold of a Gun.
Posted by: negentropyeater | February 15, 2008 10:59 AM
Just the other day, I saw an article in a London paper; a man had been arrested by armed police because he'd pulled an iPod out of his pocket, and someone called the police saying that he'd drawn a gun. A few years ago, when fears about IRA terrorism were running high, a man was shot by armed police while walking down the road carrying a chair-leg, because someone had reported that he had a shotgun.
If many people on a campus, or any crowded environment, are carrying guns, the first thing that happens will NOT be the gunning down of a would-be school shooter. It will be the gunning down of some random individual who, in the wrong light or the wrong circumstances, looked as if they might conceivably have been in some way threatening. Or of someone who reached into their jacket to adjust their holster and stop it chafing. Officer, he was about to draw a gun, I'm certain of it.
Life is not a John Woo movie. There is no director telling you that, when the camera starts rolling, three bad guys in black suits will leap out from around the corner, and those are the ones you, the mighty hero, should shoot.
I'm with Tim Krieder on this one:
http://www.thepaincomics.com/Sniper.JPG
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 15, 2008 11:01 AM
"that'd be a great idea, were it possible. noone has given me any reason to think it is possible, though.
what we can do is minimize the frequency of such things. but as you mention, decent mental health care is expensive, and the results of it take time to manifest... whereas passing new gun control laws is very cheap indeed, and the lawmakers get to take credit right away."
Western Europe seems to manage pretty well.
Posted by: matt@dandderwen.co.uk | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
Luis,
In the UK gun crime has indeed increased since the banning of handguns. Part of that is due to the way that gun crime statistics are collected and gun crime laws have changed. Now, more gun crimes are >counted in statistics than was previously the case (which is also true of almost every other kind of crime). Also, there has been a very real increase in the number of gun crimes, but that only goes to show that gun crime is more complex than simply control issues. Who denied it?
Also, whilst gun crime has increased, a large number of those crimes are robberies which involve only the threat of violence, or replica and non-operational firearms. Homicide by firearm is much rarer in the UK. How much more common would be the use of actual and fatal violence if criminbals thought that they were likely to face privately owned weapons? If you count woundings, suicides, and accidental woundings, then the UK is far behind the UK in per capita incidents. Finally, this kind of mass shooting is almost unheard of in the UK.
Gun control cleary does have role play in reducing gun crime. Although people in Switzerland and Canada, and so on, are able to own guns without using them as prolifically as Americans, that shouldn't be used to suggest that gun control is unecessary. If a cutlural change cannot be effected, for whatever reason, then other methods have to come into play. The majority of illegal firearms were either once legally owned, or else purchased illegally but via legal outlets.
Clearly, it is gun violence which is illegal, but but if fewer or better controlled legally owned firearms were in circulation, then fewer people would have access to firearms in order to perpetrate those illegal acts.
Actually, I don't even need to argue for the complete bannig of privately owned firearms, just better control. Why does any private individual need semi- or fully- automatic weapons? Why do private individuals need pump-action shotguns? Assault rifles?
I've seen how easily fireamrs can be accessed in the US, and indeed how cheaply.
Whilst in Vegas, I needed to produce my passport every time I wnet into bar, but in order to get my hands on an Uzi at a firing range, all I had to do was sign a piece of paper. I saw people buying handguns, and it seemed to be very easy; how many school-shooters have a felony record?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
I think one big problem is that people are not educated properly about mental health and getting the proper help if they need it. Also, I feel like a lot of youth feel like nobody has problems and if they get mental help they will be singled out by friends and peers. I hope more universities start to implement mental health advocacy programs on their campuses when they are developing programs to help prevent large acts of violence.
Posted by: CTO | February 15, 2008 11:04 AM
To the gun-lovers. There are about 34,000 gun deaths in the U.S. each year. A li