College Gunman Influenced by Men's Rights Movement

[I am lizard]

Small role? Let me give a list of his documented behavior:
* Tried to shove girls over a ledge at a party, failed, and got beaten up and kicked out by the guys there.
* Stalked and threw coffee on four people at a bus stop for not paying attention to him.
* Assaulted a group playing kickball

Um, what?
Like, I never denied he was violent, I was just saying it wasn't because he was autistic.

[chitoryu12]

Small role? Let me give a list of his documented behavior:
* Tried to shove girls over a ledge at a party, failed, and got beaten up and kicked out by the guys there.
* Stalked and threw coffee on four people at a bus stop for not paying attention to him.
* Assaulted a group playing kickball

Um, what?
Like, I never denied he was violent, I was just saying it wasn't because he was autistic.

Wait, where the hell are you getting me ever talking about the dude's autism? What I said was that he had obvious signs of being mentally ill, potentially to a dangerous degree, and had engaged in violent behavior toward others multiple times in the past, but his condition wasn't taken seriously enough to even begin to prevent him from doing anything and even a police call was simply brushed off.

My point is that we already DO have laws in place to try and prevent people who are violently crazy from getting their hands on weapons, but it doesn't do shit if every major warning sign is ignored.

[I am lizard]

Small role? Let me give a list of his documented behavior:
* Tried to shove girls over a ledge at a party, failed, and got beaten up and kicked out by the guys there.
* Stalked and threw coffee on four people at a bus stop for not paying attention to him.
* Assaulted a group playing kickball

Um, what?
Like, I never denied he was violent, I was just saying it wasn't because he was autistic.

Wait, where the hell are you getting me ever talking about the dude's autism? What I said was that he had obvious signs of being mentally ill, potentially to a dangerous degree, and had engaged in violent behavior toward others multiple times in the past, but his condition wasn't taken seriously enough to even begin to prevent him from doing anything and even a police call was simply brushed off.

My point is that we already DO have laws in place to try and prevent people who are violently crazy from getting their hands on weapons, but it doesn't do shit if every major warning sign is ignored.

Well you keeped mentioning "mental illness" so I thought you meant his autism.
You're more saying he was just straight up violent and shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near guns.

[chitoryu12]

Small role? Let me give a list of his documented behavior:
* Tried to shove girls over a ledge at a party, failed, and got beaten up and kicked out by the guys there.
* Stalked and threw coffee on four people at a bus stop for not paying attention to him.
* Assaulted a group playing kickball

Um, what?
Like, I never denied he was violent, I was just saying it wasn't because he was autistic.

Wait, where the hell are you getting me ever talking about the dude's autism? What I said was that he had obvious signs of being mentally ill, potentially to a dangerous degree, and had engaged in violent behavior toward others multiple times in the past, but his condition wasn't taken seriously enough to even begin to prevent him from doing anything and even a police call was simply brushed off.

My point is that we already DO have laws in place to try and prevent people who are violently crazy from getting their hands on weapons, but it doesn't do shit if every major warning sign is ignored.

Well you keeped mentioning "mental illness" so I thought you meant his autism.
You're more saying he was just straight up violent and shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near guns.

Exactly. There were plenty of signs, including his refusal to take prescribed antipsychotic medication and several instances of violent behavior toward others (at least one of which resulted in an actual police report being filed, though they mostly just quietly let it drop).

A lot of his behavior probably ended up being allowed to slide because he was the son of a wealthy family (it's mentioned in his manifesto that he returned to the party where he attacked some girls because he forgot his Gucci sunglasses).

[RavynousHunter]

You know what kicks me right square in the nuts?  That people group "mass murders" together as if they were all one unified thing with a single origin and single set of circumstances causing them.  Ya wanna know what this was a case of?  Incompetence, on many levels and from many people, including the killer himself.  People dropped the ball, likely because he was a well-to-do white kid and we all know that the ones that go on violent mass killings are scary poor people and minorities.  He didn't have a record because he was, again, a well-to-do white guy, and you don't punish the good little boys for getting a little angry.  Besides, as was pointed out before, a gun was only one of his weapons, and YET, no one is giving the fucking car the stink eye or saying we need tighter knife regulations.

Its horrible, but some people, you just can't fucking stop from going on a rampage.  If you take the gun, they'll just use something else.  Maybe he wouldn't have killed as many people, maybe not.  Its like when the shooting in Jonesboro, AR happened.  Everyone was all over enacting new laws to restrict weapons, as if that'd have stopped them.  Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden stole their weapons from Golden's grandfather, along with their ammo.  We already have laws against theft, but that didn't stop them.

Determined criminals will break the god damned law.  Determined murderers will kill people with or without firearms.  Do they make it easier?  Sure, but a knife makes it easier to kill someone when compared to beating them with your bare fists, too.  This motherfucker was god damned insane, not having a gun wouldn't have stopped him and I highly doubt it'll deter any others of his ilk.  America's got a lot of people, and a history of looking the other way when Mighty Whitey is around.

The police looked, but they did not see.  Because they didn't want to see.  They didn't do anything because he was an affluent white kid, and no affluent white kids have ever been problem children.  The problem is not one of regulation, but one of enforcement.  Incompetence fucks over everyone...and sometimes, incompetence kills.

[chitoryu12]

Besides, as was pointed out before, a gun was only one of his weapons, and YET, no one is giving the fucking car the stink eye or saying we need tighter knife regulations.

I know that gun control advocates tend to hate when you make comparisons to things like cars. One of the most common pro-gun arguments is to bring up how many people are killed in car accidents compared to firearm deaths; one of the most common rebuttals is to say that cars are actually important to living in the modern world and aren't designed as weapons, so they don't deserve that level of regulation.

But there's a pretty damn good point in bringing it up.. 2012 had 34,080 deaths by vehicle accident alone. In 2010, literally thousands of people were dying every month.

But does anyone bat an eye at it?

Car crashes tend to just float by everyone's mind. When Memorial Day weekend hits and a few dozen people get killed on the interstate while driving to the beach, it doesn't make headlines. Not one gun control advocate talks about how cars need tighter regulations when there's probably just as many deaths as Sandy Hook happening each weekend in this country, all caused by motor vehicles. The constant stream of death is totally ignored. Do you just take it as an annual bloodletting of sorts?

[I am lizard]

Regulations don't work, what's the point?

[Ironchew]

Regulations don't work, what's the point?

This message brought to you by the Libertarian Party. Fuck you, I've got mine, etc.

Besides, as was pointed out before, a gun was only one of his weapons, and YET, no one is giving the fucking car the stink eye or saying we need tighter knife regulations.

I know that gun control advocates tend to hate when you make comparisons to things like cars. One of the most common pro-gun arguments is to bring up how many people are killed in car accidents compared to firearm deaths; one of the most common rebuttals is to say that cars are actually important to living in the modern world and aren't designed as weapons, so they don't deserve that level of regulation.

But there's a pretty damn good point in bringing it up.. 2012 had 34,080 deaths by vehicle accident alone. In 2010, literally thousands of people were dying every month.

But does anyone bat an eye at it?

Car crashes tend to just float by everyone's mind. When Memorial Day weekend hits and a few dozen people get killed on the interstate while driving to the beach, it doesn't make headlines. Not one gun control advocate talks about how cars need tighter regulations when there's probably just as many deaths as Sandy Hook happening each weekend in this country, all caused by motor vehicles. The constant stream of death is totally ignored. Do you just take it as an annual bloodletting of sorts?

There is no honest comparison between the two. The critical difference between cars and guns in the United States is that you have to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle, and that license can be revoked and your privilege to operate motor vehicles along with it. We can discuss in greater detail whether our reckless driving laws are strong enough (I don't think they are), but the basic mechanism is there for taking away the privilege of driving. No such revocation exists for assault weapons, which curiously stand alone in the set of things that can quickly and easily kill multiple people that we cannot confiscate from obviously irreponsible owners.

[chitoryu12]

There is no honest comparison between the two. The critical difference between cars and guns in the United States is that you have to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle, and that license can be revoked and your privilege to operate motor vehicles along with it. We can discuss in greater detail whether our reckless driving laws are strong enough (I don't think they are), but the basic mechanism is there for taking away the privilege of driving. No such revocation exists for assault weapons, which curiously stand alone in the set of things that can quickly and easily kill multiple people that we cannot confiscate from obviously irreponsible owners.

It's also estimated that about 1/5 of fatal crashes involve at least one driver who is not properly licensed and up to 3/4 of drivers with suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive.

So yeah, we have the stated regulations in place.....and they aren't working because dangerous assholes who want to drive will keep driving no matter what you do to their license.

[RavynousHunter]

To put in more succinctly: the regulations help, but some people won't be deterred no matter WHAT you do.

Also, 'Chew, I dunno where in the world you live, but most reputable places in the US that I know of require background checks to acquire any form of firearm; from a tiny little .22 that couldn't kill a flea, to guns powerful enough to take down a charging rhinoceros in a single shot.  The thing is, a lot of places don't bother because its more of an optional program, instead of a mandatory one.  Yes, there are loopholes that need closing, and we do need to crack down when it comes to people acquiring unlicensed firearms.  I'm all for a universal firearms registration of which people must become members to even be allowed to start the purchasing process.  What would you need to demonstrate to get a permit?  You'd need to pass a gun safety course and submit to a thorough background check, at minimum.

But, again, all the laws in the world won't stop a few lone cranks who are determined and bloody minded enough to acquire a firearm, or find some other way of killing people.  Like explosives.  Anyone with a basic working knowledge of either history and/or chemistry could mix together a batch of working black powder and create a crude pipe bomb.  You can turn a few liters of perfectly innocent cleaning solutions, with the proper know-how, into astrolyte, one of the more powerful, and stable, liquid explosives available.  Hell, with astrolyte, you could turn an ordinary household sponge into a crude imitation of a hand grenade.

You can put all the laws on the books you want, but unless you have people on staff with the balls to actually enforce them, then they're not worth the paper on which they're printed.

[I am lizard]

To put in more succinctly: the regulations help, but some people won't be deterred no matter WHAT you do.

Also, 'Chew, I dunno where in the world you live, but most reputable places in the US that I know of require background checks to acquire any form of firearm; from a tiny little .22 that couldn't kill a flea, to guns powerful enough to take down a charging rhinoceros in a single shot.  The thing is, a lot of places don't bother because its more of an optional program, instead of a mandatory one.  Yes, there are loopholes that need closing, and we do need to crack down when it comes to people acquiring unlicensed firearms.  I'm all for a universal firearms registration of which people must become members to even be allowed to start the purchasing process.  What would you need to demonstrate to get a permit?  You'd need to pass a gun safety course and submit to a thorough background check, at minimum.

But, again, all the laws in the world won't stop a few lone cranks who are determined and bloody minded enough to acquire a firearm, or find some other way of killing people.  Like explosives.  Anyone with a basic working knowledge of either history and/or chemistry could mix together a batch of working black powder and create a crude pipe bomb.  You can turn a few liters of perfectly innocent cleaning solutions, with the proper know-how, into astrolyte, one of the more powerful, and stable, liquid explosives available.  Hell, with astrolyte, you could turn an ordinary household sponge into a crude imitation of a hand grenade.

You can put all the laws on the books you want, but unless you have people on staff with the balls to actually enforce them, then they're not worth the paper on which they're printed.

That's basically my opinion actually.
I would like to point out we regulate the fuck put of explosives and materials used for making explosives.
I think we basically have the same opinion on guns a gun control, we should spend more time implementing measures like making people get licenses and having certain rules on using said firearm.
 Also, increased pressure on preventing people from breaking said laws. 

[Witchyjoshy]

Besides, as was pointed out before, a gun was only one of his weapons, and YET, no one is giving the fucking car the stink eye or saying we need tighter knife regulations.

This needs to be talked about.

[I am lizard]

It's much harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun.
Plus it's basically impossible to regulate knives as their really easy to make.


And I suppose we probably need more auto regulations.

[RavynousHunter]

As someone once said "even the sharpest sword is useless in the hands of a coward."

[I am lizard]

Another thing: knives and cars are harder to kill someone with because there is way more evidence if you get up right next to someone.