Mass murderers use different methods (arson, explosions, knife attacks, shootings), but two coincidence just jump out at me. The first is that almost all mass murderers are men. The other is that they seek out locations where good people are disarmed by law.
Banning all men might be slightly impractical. Not disarming good people seems a lot easier to implement and very effective. It would be a good start.
And so it begins.
I don’t know if morbid
sarcasm would be rude at
this moment, but given the
fact of what will certainly
follow this tragic(black swan)
rubicon or completely random event,
many of us will also soon be dead.
The “many” I refer to are those
free people still left, who believe
in(respect/defend)the Constitution, the rule of law and the fredom to maintain, protect and defend(by any means necessary)our birthright
of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Here it comes, it’s not a clay pigeon, it’s a black swan.
A thing just occurred to me this morning, about the sort of “the Founders never could have foreseen modern weaponry…” tack people sometimes take.
In 1789, it would have been trivial to get a strong wooden barrel of a smallish size, stud or wrap it with nails, fill it with black powder and some fuze, and kill a crowd of people.
As far as I know that never happened – but the tools were trivially accessible to essentially anyone.
Whatever’s changed, it’s not “access to weapons of mass killing”…
(It might well be “access to large numbers of definitely disarmed victims”, but for a suicidal killer that doesn’t matter much … even if they’re armed, the bomb still goes boom after they shoot you.)
Actually, suicidal killers still want large body counts, and they want to go out their own chosen way. They want to be remembered with awe, and that’s why they don’t care whether they survive.
“A note found in a man’s apartment indicates that he intended to kill as many innocents as he could at the local mall. Fortunately, he only fired two shots before being shot by Grandma Smith, who was getting her walker repaired at the time.” <– not how they want to be remembered, so they just don't try it.
The worst school massacre in history was in 1927, when a man detonated 3 homemade bombs and killed 45 people.
http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story
Ban Knives!!!!!
Pingback: Quote of the Day - Oleg Volk(12/14/2012) - The Minuteman
“An act of cowardice carried out upon the innocent and defenseless.”
Wasn’t it a “gun free zone”? It seems to me someone would have an 18 USC 242 case here. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law resulting in the death of innocents.
You missed the part where they’re all crazy and maladjusted.
If you eliminated all of the (admittedly retarded) “gun free” zones, that would be little more than a speedbump against the murdering spree phenomenon.
Attack the source of the problem.
Wilhelm:
I agree we need to fix the root cause, but how? I’m not being snarky. I’m genuinely curious. As I understand it, mental health screening is notoriously unreliable. Not only that, but even a reliable, repeatable diagnosis probably isn’t enough. Let’s say that we found a correlation among murderers, that most of them had a reliably diagnosable condition . What proportion of the population suffering from will become murderers? Will the proportion be high enough to justify institutionalizing all sufferers against their will? Who does the screening?
The same holds true for “warning signs”, like weird or disturbing posts on Facebook or dark and disturbing writings in an English class (remember VT?). How many of those exhibiting these signs turn to violence? I doubt it’s very many.
This is what I intended to post.
Wilhelm:
I agree we need to fix the root cause, but how? I’m not being snarky. I’m genuinely curious. As I understand it, mental health screening is notoriously unreliable. Not only that, but even a reliable, repeatable diagnosis probably isn’t enough. Let’s say that we found a correlation among murderers, that most of them had a reliably diagnosable condition . What proportion of the population suffering from (x) will become murderers? Will the proportion be high enough to justify institutionalizing all (x) sufferers against their will? Who does the screening?
The same holds true for “warning signs”, like weird or disturbing posts on Facebook or dark and disturbing writings in an English class (remember VT?). How many of those exhibiting these signs turn to violence? I doubt it’s very many.
You know what wouldn’t have happened to the Colonial era bomber?
He wouldn’t have been instantly famous. Presidents and Kings would not know all about him. His name, face, and merest thoughts wouldn’t be on the front pages, on the televisions and raidos of the entire earth in a couple of hours.
Want to do something meaningful, something that might help?
STOP REWARDING THEM:
http://staghounds.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-media-statement.html
We protect our politicians with trained, armed people; we protect our money with trained, armed people; we protect our military bases with trained, armed people; we protect nuclear power plants, airports and other critical infrastructure with trained, armed people, yet our children are left defenseless to evil monsters with no training whatsoever. WTF
It is not just the mentally deranged monster that we need to consider, we also have foreign enemies that have no objection to targeting children: http://www.johnstons…m/wrjp39ch.html
I don’t think the second part is a coincidence.
Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/#ixzz2FB2KtnIV
Larry, probably but IIRC from doing a little digging after that one…even if someone HAD been armed….and pulled the trigger on that little nit…they would have likely been arrested.. Aurora actually tried to ban guns…but the state supremes told them in no unnecessary terms to go self fellate because that is against the State AND U.S. constitution.. The laws on the books up there are frellin stupid.
Seems the OR mall shooter was interrupted by a guy with a CPL.
No mention of it in the MSM.
Spread the word.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Of course not silly Raven, because neither that one…or the one just the other day where a 14yr old kid babysitting is 3 younger siblings shot an intruder…do not fit the “all guns bad, must get rid of evil guns” narrative.
Oleg said it well: https://blog.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/sign.jpg.html
I would say “all” rather than “most”. The only half-exception I can think of is the Gifford shooting — I count that for half because it was a Democratic party gathering, which given Democratic ideology is almost the same as a no-guns zone. Or to call it by its proper name: a disarmed victim zone.
Wilhelm, you said “If you eliminated all of the (admittedly retarded) “gun free” zones, that would be little more than a speedbump against the murdering spree phenomenon.” Not so. In the most recent case, several people tried to stop the murderer, but they were unsuccessful because they were unarmed. Ditto in a number of other cases. The biggest example is 9/11/2001 (http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html). The root cause is the same in each of those. This http://www.wallsofthecity.net/images/gun/nocarry.jpg says it very plainly — essentially what Oleg said but rather more bluntly.
Here’s John Lott on the same subject: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/ .
And the key observation echoes what I just speculated: “With just one single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”