College & High School Shootings: What Now

[mkemse]

After yet another senseless school shooting at NIU University in DeKalb Illinois On Thursday Feb 14, what do you suggest be done to prevent these incidients from continuing, either at the College Level or high school level even the Campus Police Chief at NIU even said last night "On and open Campus of 25,000+ students it is virutaly imposssible to prevents things like this from happening since it is a open campus"
Would appriciate any comments anyone may have, and personaly my thoughts and prayers go out to the families who lost loved one in this terrible sesnseless tradgedy

[ThisYouWillDo]

I understand there have been 4 separate shooting incidents this week in colleges/universities in USA. This is appalling news and I also send my sympathies and condolences to those affected

My views on gun-control have been well-aired elsewhere. These events do not encourage me to alter them.

TYWD

[Thorne]

My views on gun-control have been well-aired elsewhere. These events do not encourage me to alter them.

Yes, you and I have been over this before, but I'm a little more inclined to see things your way at the moment. These kinds of things are just horrible!

What confuses and concerns me about them is that there is very little in common among the shooters. Some were bullied and ridiculed, some were just shy, some were trying to settle romantic scores. Nothing concrete that you can come out and say, "Look out for this behavior in students!"

[Warbaby1943]

reinstate corporal punishments at all levels

[mkemse]

reinstate corporal punishments at all levels

I agree but I do not think that will deter anything, peoeple who committhesetype of crimes do notknow what they aredoing andif so will; probably care elelss aboutwhat happens to them, plus in most cases the shooter kils himself in the end, that means no death pentalty to the shooter

[Logic1]

Make it way harder to get access to guns is one way for sure, but that seem to be a hard limit to lots of americans it seems.
So sadly I guess that you simply need to spend more money on mental healtcare and/or accept the fact that it happens?

yes that is VERY cynical but without easy access to weapons then it simply wouldnt happen or atleast way more seldom.

my deepest condolences to those affected is there for sure in any case.

[mkemse]

Make it way harder to get access to guns is one way for sure, but that seem to be a hard limit to lots of americans it seems.
So sadly I guess that you simply need to spend more money on mental healtcare and/or accept the fact that it happens?

yes that is VERY cynical but without easy access to weapons then it simply wouldnt happen or atleast way more seldom.

my deepest condolences to those affected is there for sure in any case.

I gree with you on spemnding more Money On Mental Health Clincs, but the 2009 Fereral Budget has Our Currebt Presdient cutting money for Social Secvice Agencies and social Securityand Nedicare by 500 Billion Dollars, what do we do then??

[spammik]

My heart goes out to all of the people involved.......I am at a loss of understanding any act of violence.....

[mkemse]

The did annnouce this morinig, that 6th sutdent died making it 7 totla 6 and the gunman with 3 still in critical condition his type senseless violence has to stop or parents will stop snedingthier kids to school andstart home schooling them

[ThisYouWillDo]

Corporal punishment does nothing except brutalise both the person administering it and the person receiving it. As a deterrent it's useless. As retribution, it's ineffective, and as a means of making amends, irrelevant.

As I've said before, it doesn't even make the victims feel better. (Or if it does, the judicial system shouldn't be catering for that kind of perversion.)

TYWD

[Thorne]

Corporal punishment does nothing except brutalise both the person administering it and the person receiving it. As a deterrent it's useless. As retribution, it's ineffective, and as a means of making amends, irrelevant.

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

[mkemse]

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

my concenr on thi whole issue is most shooting ens with the shooter commiting suicide or being take by the polie but what do collegles and schools that are all open campus do to protect their students better, i have neevr hear of a shooter going to trial because they are usialy killed at the scene to begin with

[Thorne]

my concenr on thi whole issue is most shooting ens with the shooter commiting suicide or being take by the polie but what do collegles and schools that are all open campus do to protect their students better, i have neevr hear of a shooter going to trial because they are usialy killed at the scene to begin with

One advantage of the killers taking themselves out is that they save the state the cost of a trial and incarceration and appeals and more appeals and more appeals.

Of course, the disadvantage is that you don't get to speak with and study the killer to find out what went wrong to cause him to do such a thing. Over the years law enforcement has managed to improve their understanding of serial killers and the kinds of things that make them tick. They need to do the same for these "spree" killers, those who just seem to snap for some reason and try to take out as many people as they can. And it does seem that many of them seem to have no sense of self preservation. They go into it knowing that they are going to die, one way or another.

As for protecting the campuses and the students, there is no absolutely sure way to do that, beyond locking THEM up for the duration, basically turning our schools into a form of prison. That, IMO, is no solution. In fact, it would probably make the problem worse.

Anyone who wants absolute safety in this world is in for a serious disappointment. There is no such thing. We risk our lives every day we are breathing. We can minimize the dangers, but there comes a point, just as in medicine, where the cure is worse than the disease. All you can do is learn to live with the threats and do your best to avoid them.

[mkemse]

One advantage of the killers taking themselves out is that they save the state the cost of a trial and incarceration and appeals and more appeals and more appeals.

Of course, the disadvantage is that you don't get to speak with and study the killer to find out what went wrong to cause him to do such a thing. Over the years law enforcement has managed to improve their understanding of serial killers and the kinds of things that make them tick. They need to do the same for these "spree" killers, those who just seem to snap for some reason and try to take out as many people as they can. And it does seem that many of them seem to have no sense of self preservation. They go into it knowing that they are going to die, one way or another.

As for protecting the campuses and the students, there is no absolutely sure way to do that, beyond locking THEM up for the duration, basically turning our schools into a form of prison. That, IMO, is no solution. In fact, it would probably make the problem worse.

Anyone who wants absolute safety in this world is in for a serious disappointment. There is no such thing. We risk our lives every day we are breathing. We can minimize the dangers, but there comes a point, just as in medicine, where the cure is worse than the disease. All you can do is learn to live with the threats and do your best to avoid them.

The Chief Of Police For NIU Security said in a pRess Conference last night and again today "As long a we have open campus there is no way to 100% guarantee security, it simply is not a reality, it can not be done"

[ThisYouWillDo]

Well, I think you would have to admit that, to date, there has never been an executed murderer who has killed again.

I have to give you that one, Thorne. I'm guilty of blurring the distinction between corporal and capital punishment.

No-one executed for murder has killed again afterwards: even the ones who were innocent and, it might be argued, had a "free strike". A crude but highly effective means of punishment. Maybe that's why our forefathers used the death penalty on highway robbers, adulterers and sheep stealers too. One shouldn't disregard the wisdom of the ages lightly.

Knives are becoming a problem at our schools, and a few of them have installed metal detectors at all entrances. Maybe that would work in USA universities. But, thinking about it a little more, if I were intent on carrying out a mass killing, I wouldn't let anyone stop me at a metal detector - I'd run past then open up, probably taking out the guard as my first victim.

TYWD

[Whippett]

Coming from a country with strict gun control as well - I have to say that I've never understood the American love affair with guns. Guns don't kill - but any lunatic can get a gun - and that is the problem - lunatics with guns! Sometimes I think that the line between responsible and irresponsible ownership in terms of guns is lost in the political argument. And gun ownership should be a responsibility - and should not be a universal right.

I'm also with TYWD on the death penalty - it serves no purpose except revenge. Heck, if the death penalty were a deterrent there would likely be far fewer mass murders in the US. The media should certainly stop sensationalizing mas murder as well - all that does is bring out one more unhinged copy-cat killing.

[Thorne]

I'm also with TYWD on the death penalty - it serves no purpose except revenge.

I disagree. While it's true that the death penalty is not necessarily a deterrent, I think it can, when applied properly, help to protect society and innocent civilians. I do not, however, propose applying the death penalty indiscriminately. A parent who kills his children, while heinous, is probably not a threat to anyone else. The Susan Smith case, here in South Carolina, comes to mind. While she most definitely killed her kids, many of the people who advocated giving her the death penalty wanted it only because she had misled them into thinking the kids had been kidnapped. She made them feel sorry for her and when they learned the truth they wanted her head. As it turned out she was given a life sentence, which I do think was appropriate in her case.
But a person like Jeffrey Dalmer or Richard Speck, who killed innocent people at random, with no ulterior motive, certainly deserve the death penalty. They are a threat to anyone they cross paths with and, if they should ever escape from prison (not unheard of, let's face it) they would undoubtedly kill again.
I also believe that anyone who kills a police officer should be executed, a mandatory sentence without possibility of commutation. There are a few other types of crimes, along a similar vein, but I certainly wouldn't want to use the death penalty as a catch-all punishment.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

[mkemse]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

A Police Officer Is Considered a Munticple Governement Employess which carriers a stiffer sentence both are wrong, if you kill a letter carrier that is also a Federal Offense since they work for the Government

[Thorne]

Why is it worse to kill a policeman than an estate agent or a lawyer?

Only because a police officer is the outward representative of the law. They are there (theoretically, at least) to help protect the rest of us from the criminals. Those who would kill the police are a bigger threat to the rest of society than almost any other criminal.

And killing lawyers can almost be considered a public service anyway. (Just kidding, all you lawyers out there. Don't sue me for bad jokes.)

[ThisYouWillDo]

So, to commit premeditated murder by killing an ordinary citizen is less reprehensible than accidentally and inadvertently killing a policeman in the heat of the moment? How does it feel to be a second class citizen?

In the UK, the police are regarded as public servants. They call me "Sir" not "Buddy" and I call them "Constable" not "Sir".

And if we both faced a lunatic with a gun, he would be expected (morally, only, of course) to take the bullet instead of me.

If it really is because killing a representative of the justice system must be punished more severely, pour encourager les autres, wouldn't it be simpler just to make resisting arrest a capital offence and be done with it?

[Thorne]

So, to commit premeditated murder by killing an ordinary citizen is less reprehensible than accidentally and inadvertently killing a policeman in the heat of the moment? How does it feel to be a second class citizen?

In the UK, the police are regarded as public servants. They call me "Sir" not "Buddy" and I call them "Constable" not "Sir".

And if we both faced a lunatic with a gun, he would be expected (morally, only, of course) to take the bullet instead of me.

If it really is because killing a representative of the justice system must be punished more severely, pour encourager les autres, wouldn't it be simpler just to make resisting arrest a capital offence and be done with it?

As usual, your aversion to the death penalty has you selecting extreme examples. I never said that killing anyone was more or less reprehensible than killing anyone else. To my mind the question revolves around the threat to society. A man who kills his wife, whether premeditated or not, is not likely to kill other people randomly. Certainly, he should be imprisoned for life, no parole. But he is not a threat to society.
While I have a hard time thinking of how one could "inadvertently or accidentally" kill a police officer while committing a felony, naturally circumstances must be taken into account. But remember: in the US at least, when you commit a felony you are responsible for ALL outcomes of that crime. If you cause the death of ANYONE, whether by design or by accident, it is still felony murder. If you deliberately shoot a police officer you are, by my definition, a serious threat to society, and deserving of the death penalty. Not "pour encourager les autres", but for the protection of the rest of society.
Here, too, the police are public servants. I have never had one call me "buddy". They have always referred to me as "Sir" or as "Mr. Thorne" once they have learned my name. But by the same token, I give them my full respect, because of the job they do, and I refer to them as either "Officer" or "Sir".

[Ozme52]

Better eliminate all cars and motor vehicles too.

In 2002, for example, gun deaths numbered 28+ thousand.
Motorvehicle deaths numbered 43+ thousand...

with drivers of automatics being the worst culprits.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Better eliminate all cars and motor vehicles too.

In 2002, for example, gun deaths numbered 28+ thousand.
Motorvehicle deaths numbered 43+ thousand...

with drivers of automatics being the worst culprits.

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.

Ozme: I almost wish it were so. It would be good to know what most people think instead of what a few spokespersons claim.

On the other hand, I'm not all that convinced that people wouldn't just parrot what they hear from the current celebrities of the day. After-all, that's why the NRA used Charlton Heston... hell, if Moses says it, it's gotta be true.

So maybe it's a good thing the mob doesn't rule.

But my point was and still is... just because someone loudly proclaims that it's only the gun lobby that impedes the passage of this... well there are huge numbers of non-NRA folk who don't believe we should have gun control.

No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.

Ozme: It's not about the assault rifles per se... but the 'worry' that the right to bear arms will be eroded. Take away assault rifles and then handguns and then largebore hunting rifles (no elephants in the U.S. ya know) and then any hunting rifle because we raise enough meat on farms and ranches for everyone... and... and... and eventually why do you even need a 'varmint rifle'.

The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.

What is a "varmint rifle"?

Ozme: I know it seems a ridiculous arguement... but tell that to my grandpa... but you can't... they took away his guns and then sent him and the family away.

I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.

Ozme: Definitely.

Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?

Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first?

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.

Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?

And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?

mkemse: But he also PASSED all the paperwork needed to get a gun, his stopping his medication etc is not relivent here, because he went through all the proper steps on paper work, his back ground checked came back all clear ...

I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.


You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

[mkemse]

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.



No argument, and complete agreement with what you say about spokesmen attempting to represent the "will of the majority", whichever point of view they want to promote.



The right to bear arms is an anachronism. As I said, the 13 colonies obtained their freedom two and a half centuries ago, and then occupied or purchased much of the rest of the continent. The American people are under no threat except from their own government, and that represents no threat at all. And I contend that, if your government ever did want to oppress the American people, it would do so despite the fact that so many are armed. In fact, it would probably encourage hot-headed armed extremists to create unrest so that it could step in and impose "law and order" to protect everyone else.

What is a "varmint rifle"?



I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.



Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?



Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

Furthermore, if a person is spotted as a risk, those services can be utilised before any catastrophe occurs, and maybe avert it. So is part of the answer some kind of psycholgical profiling?

And is that already happening when it comes to buying guns?




I don't know what those checks entailed, but it does indicate that all forms of checking are susceptible to failure at key times. Therefore, even with psychological profiling as a preventative, gun-controls remain desirable.


You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

First unless it was not directed at me I never ever suggested guns be banned only assult rifles to the gennral public they have no use with the general public becauee those type weapons are designed for military use not general public use, what use would you have personal to own a full automatic assault rifle, and do not just say the right to bear arm,s assault rifle in the hands of private citizens is as dangerous as it gets
My only objection to gun owership private gun owner ship is assaulr rifle and assault hand guns, if someone wants to own a hand gun, a regular hand gun i have no issue with it if someone wants to own a rifle for hunting or to protect their family let them have one

if someone wantsa to own a full automatic assault rifle or a simialr in a hand gun, yes i have a HUGE issue with that why does anyoneneed a rifle for private usethat fire 80 roundsa second to hunt?? a stanard rifle and or hand gun for hunting or protecting ones family is all they need, you can ban assualt riflesand similar hand gund with ut aking away anyonesright to bear arms

[Ozme52]

I don't know why you suddenly started talking about ancient modes of transport, but I have been referring to this post which clearly relates to 21st century statistics.

I find it hard to believe that the USA still collects statistics on deaths caused by chariots (especially as they have never been used there, not even motorised ones - except, perhaps, in Hollywood), and because of that, I feel somehow you've snookered yourself. Perhaps you were too engrossed in reading The Illiad to realise that my questions about the statistics you quoted were put in the (quite natural) belief that you were talking about cars or automobiles as those words are generally understood in the modern era.

But no matter.

Hey. I introduced the statistics. YOU asked about the original intent of cars. I pointed out the first cars were war chariots (by definition) I didn't bring any chariot statistics, I just answered your question as to the original intent of cars.

So don't act like I started the chariot conversation. I was making a point that there are things in our lives far more dangerous than guns. You wanted to bring the intention of the thing into play... so I pointed out cars were once pure weapons.

BTW, You should read the Iliad too. (Or again.) It has a lot of good theological perspective too.

The right to bear arms is an anachronism.

So you think... but you have to grow up in the US to understand the emotions behind the issues. I'm sure there are anachronisms you enjoy in your country that many people treasure... and far be it for me to say it's out of date... a royal family for example.

What is a "varmint rifle"?

Main Entry: var·mint
Pronunciation: \ˈvär-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of vermin
Date: circa 1539
1: an animal considered a pest; specifically : one classed as vermin and unprotected by game law
2: a contemptible person : rascal; broadly : person, fellow

A gun for eliminating pests as defined in the first definition.

I infer that your family suffered at the hands of an oppressive (European?) regime, for which I am sorry. As you have mentioned it here, I assume you anticipate a response. And it will be brief. It seems your family possessed firearms, but that did not help them when the oppressors took the guns away and deported them. So, yes, the argument does seem ridiculous.

The issue is that they gave up their guns... and later gave up their liberty and their lives. Perhaps if they'd still had their guns... their oppressors wouldn't have been so successful.

Unnecessarily so. Aren't you better than that?

Usually. I guess what I really should do is walk away because EVERY thread he starts he wants to use solely as a political stump. He even started one today and has stated the bounds of the conversation. His right I guess... but he'd be getting his ass reamed on a regular basis if he were doing it in a political forum instead of this supposedly sexual forum. We're much more polite.

I guess I forgot where I was...

Corporal punishment is as barbaric as capital punishment. As I said before, it demeans the person meting out the beatings as well as the poor sod who receives it. In any case, what form of corporal punishment is suitable for someone who kills a classfull of students? 1,000 lashes?

Geeze, Why do you always go to the extreme!! Who said lashing? Warbaby is in favor of a good spanking for misbehaving children. Maybe they'd have a better understanding of bad behavior begets harsh consequences. Because children who NEVER face some form of penultimate punishment from their parents just wear their parents down until they give up.

And then they go through life thinking they can do whatever they please without consequence.

I agree with you that psychiatric services are a must. That implies that the death penalty will not be imposed, and I heartily applaud that.

NO!! The question was what could be done to prevent the incident. That is what both Warbaby and I were answering. You obviously think we're talking about how to deal with it after the fact...

I hate having to defend myself against things I didn't say.

You cite an example of a lunatic using a car to kill children instead of a gun and ask, if guns should be banned because of these university killings, why cars shouldn't also banned as a consequence of this act. I tried to answer that question earlier, when you responded with the statistics I have pasted at the top of this post. Cars are, as you say designed as modes of transport, not as weapons. Guns, on the other hand have no purpose other than killing. Although that does include hunting (and like many other liberals, I would allow that, even though, in this day and age, hunting in America is a recreation rather than an essential for life - so maybe I wouldn't allow it after all).

And, supposing that happened; what would the consequences be compared to bannnng guns? No food or materials could be moved faster than a horsee could pull them. The economy would be ruined at a stroke.

No-one would die as a result of car accidents, but the number of people trampled by horses is likely to rise.

My gun/car comment was to point out that, in my opinion, the gun is not the problem. People are. But that argument is always discounted by gun control enthusiasts in their zeal to take away my rights.

If half the effort and money that goes into the gun control lobby (which rarely gets defamed the way you like to defame the gun rights lobby) maybe there'd be more progress in the field of detecting psychotic behavior. (See!! I can make inane comments with the best of them.)

Now, if guns were banned, what would happen? Apart from a few job losses, nothing!

You cannot reasonably put that question, Ozme.

TYWD

As I pointed out earlier, you don't understand the issue. What would happen? You would turn, literally, a hundred million law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight. They wouldn't turn in their guns.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics?

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard )

TYWD

[mkemse]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

I don't see why my argument was extreme. Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

If a man only kills policemen, he would appear to be obsessive and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than execution.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

Osme: Please tell me, are cars designed to kill, or do they have another purpose? What about guns? Maybe you can hold them by the barrel and use them as hammers?

It would be interesting to compare the number of car deaths per car owner with gun deaths per gun owner too.

Also, how many gun victims were shot by automatics?

BTW, you might be amused to know that in all the years' driving experience I have had - too many to want to think about - I had never had an accident until I got an automatic a few years ago. I have had two minor accidents since: I rear ended someone, and I took out a traffic sign. So I'm on your side in that regard )

TYWD

our film maker and movie studios sebsationlizeeverything, but in reality the Gunman at NIU had a Master in Pyscology, and more in portent passed EVERY bck ground check required inthis country to puchase a gun, he had a 2 day wait to check on his mental stability he passed, everytning he did to obtain his guns was legal, they talked to the gun dealer who sold them and the dealer said and has paper work yo back it up, he wentt hrough all the legal steps required by law, back groundcheck, mental health histiry ect and the gun man came up clean on all tests, what next??

[Thorne]

Ok - I have the wrong impression about American cops - I get it from the way your film makers portray them.

Yeah, I guess that would be equivalent to my getting my impressions of English bobbies from watching Benny Hill. Not necessarily the best source.

Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing?

Obviously, if the criminal kills the unarmed woman then he is, at least by my definition, a threat to society. He has and will kill indiscriminately. Even if he doesn't try to kill the cops when they approach him, he is a threat. But when he deliberately attacks an armed policeman he is either suicidal (in which case, take shoot the bastard and don't spare the bullets) or he's an even bigger threat to society (same result.) Obviously, anyone who is not afraid to attack an armed police officer isn't going to worry about killing anyone else.

If a man is a threat to society, because he is likely to kill anyone and everyone who gets in his way, he must be taken out of society: I would prefer that to be permanently gaoled.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US I'm not sure there is any such thing as permanently jailed. Far too many violent criminals manage to either escape or snow a parole board into letting them out.

And what if a policeman's wife kills him during a domestic dispute?

Again, each case has to be judged independently. In this case she's probably not killing him because he's a policeman, but because he's a bad husband, or for some other domestic reason. Chances are she's no threat to anyone else.

Finally, as lawyers are as important a part of the legal system as police officers are, why should their murders not be treated in exactly the same way.

It might come to that. If we reach a stage where criminals are killing the lawyers and judges who are prosecuting them, then obviously they are as much of a danger as if they were killing policemen.

It's obvious that you have a higher regard for the "sanctity" of human life than I do. I just feel like there are some people in this world who have proven by their own actions that they do not deserve to live with the rest of us. Jails don't always work with these kinds of people, and history has shown that penal colonies don't work well either. For the safety of law abiding citizens I think the death penalty is SOMETIMES the only solution.

[Ozme52]

Why is the killing of an unarmed woman who disturbs you during the commission of a crime, in the heat of the moment less bad than killing an armed cop who does the same thing? To my mind, if either is worse than the other (which I do not believe) then it is the killing of the unarmed woman which deserves harsher punishment.

You're absolutely right TY. There is no difference per se. Both acts are equally reprehensible.

But this country debates the death penalty... and places where they are loathe to try criminals with the death penalty 'on the table' for political reasons, have shown their true desire by approving the death penalty for the killing of law officers.

I'm not saying yea or nay, regarding the death penalty... but that's the way it is... kill a cop, you die. Kill someone else...

It's just an excuse... if you're willing to kill a cop, we don't want to give you a chance to do it again.

It goes to the very core of that issue.