sda2.jpg

February 15, 2008

"I feel I am committed to social justice"

wrote Illinois University rampage killer, a social work major who also listed "peace" and "political violence" among his interests.

(Note that word "feel.")

Ah yes, "social justice": the forced application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.

So: answer as if you had to bet your life on it -- did this guy vote Democrat or Republican?

Unpack to your hearts' content in the comments.

Posted by KShaidle at February 15, 2008 1:00 PM
Comments

If he had belonged to the Republicans on Campus club do you think the MSM would let us know? Perhaps I missed that segment on MSNBC.

Posted by: I.C.E. Man at February 15, 2008 1:13 PM

What an irrational and ridiculous post, even by your standards.

Posted by: justin at February 15, 2008 1:22 PM

Being of libertarian bent, I've always thought that either we have justice for the individual, or we have no justice at all.

Given this, where does that leave "social justice"? What the hell is it even supposed to mean?

Posted by: rabbit at February 15, 2008 1:28 PM

Actually I believe the article said he was a grad student.

Posted by: Soon2bexcanadian at February 15, 2008 1:44 PM

""""Given this, where does that leave "social justice"? What the hell is it even supposed to mean?"""""

it's a lieberal condition


just another way to deflect "responsibility" away from the individual and onto thee collective

Posted by: GYM at February 15, 2008 1:44 PM

...and nothing says "social justice" and "peace" like slaughtering numerous innocent and unarmed college students...

Posted by: Bruce at February 15, 2008 1:47 PM

"social justice": the forced application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.

That is a keeper - should be put on t-shirts.

Posted by: Mississauga Matt at February 15, 2008 1:53 PM

So a wackjob socialist activist goes berserk and starts shooting... par for the course if you ask me...

Posted by: Richard Evans at February 15, 2008 2:00 PM

"What an irrational and ridiculous post, even by your standards."

Irrational being meant as "how dare you point out that it was a stupid leftard like me and not some White KKKhristian KKKonservative like I believed it was!"

I believe other leftards (daly, ringo) called on Kate to post something about this issue. Of course they were calling in race into the issue (as it was a "white guy")

Well, the shooter is a leftard. Enjoy.

Posted by: Warwick at February 15, 2008 2:01 PM

*
hey, hey... I've got another one...

this guy says, "let's get the religion out of politics".

"I believe that most Ontarians, whether they profess religion
or follow no religion at all, would agree with me that the
Lord's Prayer should be replaced, not by another prayer,
but with an inclusive and purposeful pledge-to-serve."

Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, National President,
The Canadian Islamic Congress

sheesh... who needs comedy clubs?

*

Posted by: neo at February 15, 2008 2:02 PM

How the bloody hell someone can twist this tragedy into an indictment on the left is beyond me. I guess it helps if you're of the mentality that the Holocaust can be used as a prank...God help you, McMillen.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Oops, it was Shaidle. Well, fivefeetofcrazy as author of this post makes a bit more sense.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 15, 2008 2:07 PM

Well, you leftards twist everything else into an indictment of the right, so what's with the phony outrage?

Posted by: grok at February 15, 2008 2:08 PM

Social justice, eh? How about allowing me to execute the scumbag who murdered my uncle. There would be some justice there, and I am a very social chap. Considering that the thug did less than 10 years for his first murder, and murdered my uncle upon release, I would think that he could be considered "anti-social". No?

"Social Justice". Right up there with "the cheque is in the mail", and "I won't ____ in yer mouth"

Posted by: kingstonlad at February 15, 2008 2:10 PM

"How dare you twist the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy into an indictment of the Right?!?"

Oh wait...

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at February 15, 2008 2:12 PM

Ringo,

Weren't you the idiot who called for a post on the subject when you thought it was just some white guy?

Hypocrite.

Posted by: Warwick at February 15, 2008 2:12 PM

John Daly:

"And I want to know why Kate has not provided a link to that horrible terrorist attack in the USA today. You know, the one committed by the white guy with the handguns and shotguns. No nanny state messing with his right to bear arms, eh? Yippee kay yay!!"

Ringo:

"Daly: you won't hear Kate post anything on those shootings. Sorry. (Unless, of course, the guy was a Muslim. Then the SDA groupies will be calling to bring back internment camps, etc.)"

So turning a tragedy into an indictment of the right is f'ing peachy but not so much when the facts go the other way, eh?

This is why we mock you leftards.

Posted by: Warwick at February 15, 2008 2:16 PM

"social justice"? What the hell is it even supposed to mean?"
rabbit at February 15, 2008 1:28 PM

Kathy's definition in her post looks pretty good to me. Another one I have seen is:

"Placing the adjective "social" in front of any word changes its meaning to the exact opposite of what it originally meant."

I smile inwardly whenever I encounter some do-gooder or activist group that claims a commitment to "social justice".

Posted by: felis corpulentis at February 15, 2008 2:30 PM

Hey leftard. Last I heard, the Oklahoma bomber faced some severe "social justice". The type of "social justice" that I would like to mete out to a few select scumbags. You make it sound like we think McVeigh is some kind of hero. He was an extremist who got was he deserved. Nice try, idiot moonbat.

Posted by: kingstonlad at February 15, 2008 2:36 PM

what he deserved

Posted by: kingstonlad at February 15, 2008 2:40 PM

Waiting to hear that his heroes were Che and Mao...

Posted by: Flaggman at February 15, 2008 2:40 PM

Reminds me of Jim Jones of the infamous "let's all have a drink of kill-aid." Jimmy boy there was one of the great leaders of the social justice movement.

I don't know why you don't hear the left speak about him much.

Posted by: Honey Pot at February 15, 2008 2:47 PM

Thank you for the perfectly rational post, not at all ridiculous.

My, you do have an eye for irony.

For now on, I'm putting a wrist-rocket in my backpack to take to classes.

Posted by: Bour3 at February 15, 2008 2:52 PM

I put end tags on that ^^^.

Posted by: Bour3 at February 15, 2008 2:53 PM

Shooting people in a rage besides the narcissism involved is a pretty primative coping skill. You've got to wonder how much of this guy's infantile emotional make-up got nourished indirectly, certainly not helped, by the lefty academics that are so pervasive in sociology. When you are part of an ideology that is feelings based and you aren't wrapped that tight yourself it's not helpful. It adds to the permissions to act badly. It retards developing critical thinking skills to keep harmful emotions in check.

In lots of college departments there aren't any adults in charge, instead emotionally laden failure-to-mature lefties stoking the kids emotionally. Look no further than the Group of 88's predatory behavior in the Duke case as an example of lefty academics egging on bad behavior in kids.

Posted by: penny at February 15, 2008 2:57 PM

There are families grieving for loved ones, and young lives snuffed out. I'm afraid I don't have much room for gloating over left/right on this.

That being said, I am curious about the phenomenon of suicides that take down innocents with them. Why not just pop yourself and be done with it? Where is the logic, or the emotional payoff in taking others with you?

Simplistic as it may seem, I cannot help but think the culture of entitlement, victimization and denial of personal responsibility manifests itself in these horrors. It is as if "I am not to blame for being a failure - it is your fault - so we're both going to die".

Blame anyone but yourself - it's a consistent message from popular culture. If the perpetrator cannot be identified - make one up. The Illuminati, UFOs, repressed memories, past lives, Crusaders - who cares, just as long as the finger points outward.

Posted by: shaken at February 15, 2008 3:00 PM

Did the prophet Suzuki or the great Goracle speak at that school?

I know the glowtards are trying to get the message out to the youngin's that the world will be ending soon, because of evil capitalism and... their parents.

Maybe he thought he was doing the other students a favour, saving them from the inevitable death caused by global warming. Maybe he thought it was his duty to thin out the population to save the planet for other more worthy glowtards, like the Goracle and prophet Suzuki.

...or maybe he was just nuts.

Posted by: Honey Pot at February 15, 2008 3:06 PM

In my life I have met and known a few Social Work grads and even a couple with post grad and doctoral honours.

To a person they were disturbed to the point of obviously being in need of some kind of counselling themselves. My observation is that they were hoping to fix themselves by learning how to fix others.

It does not work.... at least for this type of character.
Sad but true!

Posted by: OMMAG at February 15, 2008 3:07 PM

NYT:

But Mr. Grady said that those who knew the shooter said he had started acting erratic in recent weeks. “Apparently, he had been taking medication and he had stopped taking the medication in recent weeks,” Mr. Grady said.

Posted by: shaken at February 15, 2008 3:37 PM

One of the London tube train bombers worked as a Social Worker - is there a developing pattern here?

Posted by: mike in bc at February 15, 2008 3:53 PM

'Social justice' is PC-speak for communism.

Posted by: grok at February 15, 2008 4:07 PM

Good thing he was a Lefty. If he was a Right winger he'd have been able to hit the side of a barn. Might have known to use a rifle too.

And now to unload on a few idiots. You boys are begging for it, here it comes.

Bour3:"For now on, I'm putting a wrist-rocket in my backpack to take to classes."

Yes, a slingshot is what a Lefty would bring to a gun fight. Just to enlighten you O Artistic One, you have no right to self defense in this country. If this happened in Toronto and you put the shooter down with a well throw textbook, there's a good chance you'd find yourself charged. Nice, eh? Your tax dollars at work, kid. Laugh it up.

Johnnyringo: "How the bloody hell someone can twist this tragedy into an indictment on the left is beyond me."

Well Johnny, there's a whole industry of anti-gun media whores (DemocRats and Liberals) out there with faxes and talking points all primed to go whenever one of these shootings happens. Their effect is to make it possible for more shootings to happen by keeping gun control alive as a policy idea.

Term "gun free zone" ring a bell, Johnny? You wanna shoot down a bunch of people and get on TV, where you gonna go? Where you know nobody can shoot back, obviously.

This stuff is dirt simple. These shootings happen because there's nobody there who can stop them. When that changes, these shootings will stop. Not before.

You can be part of the solution or keep perpetuating the problem along with all the other bleeding heart Liberal socialists you hang out with. Up to you, monkey boys.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 4:08 PM

Good point Phantom, if you are itching to kill people, people who can't fight back, you go somewhere you know they don't have guns. Same as robbing people, thieves tend to pick on elderly people, or women living alone. They would get a wicked surprise they ever met up with my granny. I don't like guns, they make me nervous, but I am glad I know how to use one if I had to.

Posted by: Honey Pot at February 15, 2008 4:22 PM

It's tragic that the perpetrator knows full well that he will meet no armed resistance when he goes into the school.

In this respect, he is no different from any other criminal. If he knows that he can commit his deeds with no possibility of aggressive action being taken against him, it makes his decision a lot easier.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 15, 2008 4:25 PM

yes, all the liberal social justice people just love to feel. trouble is they don't think.

Posted by: old white guy at February 15, 2008 4:46 PM

"In this respect, he is no different from any other criminal. If he knows that he can commit his deeds with no possibility of aggressive action being taken against him, it makes his decision a lot easier."

Yes, because clearly, he was afraid of dying. He was so afraid of getting shot to death that he shot himself to death.

Posted by: Kevin at February 15, 2008 4:47 PM

Right on, Phantom, this always happens in schools, malls and churches, gun free zones. These losers never pick a police station nor a rodeo or Nascar event where there are gun racks on trucks in the parking lot. It doesn't happen at major sporting events where there are armed cops either.

On a similar note, jihadi carbecues, now nightly in Denmark, would end real fast if neighbors fired a few warning shots out a window at those punks. But, then, you've got to have a gun to do that.

Posted by: penny at February 15, 2008 4:47 PM

Yes, further irony to the story is that Northern's campus is a 'gun free zone'. Well...for law abiding citizens I guess, but not nutbars hellbent on destroying themselves and others.

Favourite quote of the week: 'Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming pencils for spelling mistakes'

I happen to be a graduate of NIU - breaks my heart to see my alma mater splashed on CNN like Virginia Tech and Columbine. It's a great university in a nice small farm town.

What makes it so odd is this guy drove all the way from U of I in Champaign (over 175 miles away thru cornfields) just to come back to DeKalb to kill people. Bizarre. He was obviously pretty motivated and I would think that if he couldn't have gotten hold of the guns he would have found another way to inflict mass casualties.

Posted by: sooz at February 15, 2008 4:48 PM

It is weird how the left believe that people should be lining up to be victims of crime. If someone had a gun at that school, perhaps a couple of those students would still be alive.

Posted by: Honey Pot at February 15, 2008 4:49 PM

"Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat"

Posted by: Simeon at February 15, 2008 4:55 PM

Halloooo Ringo.
Halloooo Daly.

Are you there?

Posted by: Jay at February 15, 2008 5:11 PM

Let's pretend for a moment, gentle reader, that you're a right wing conservative blogger named Kathy Shaidle. Don't look at me like that, I said we're just pretending.

You come across an online story in which the killer of several college students the previous day was reported as once making comment in which he claimed he was interested in "social justice." He was also a sociology major.

Quiz time!

Do you: a) stop and ask yourself if, realistically, it makes an bit of sense to even remotely suggest his interest in "social justice," or the fact he was a sociology major, has any connection with his crime, or, indeed, engage of any type of research to somehow quantify said bizzare claim; or b) post a link on SDA implying that any left wing, progressive minded person is capable, nay, likely, to commit such an atrocity, for nothing more than some sick and ever-so-subtle political statement?

I know which option I'd go with, gentle reader. Unfortunately - surprise, surprise - the blogger in question chose differently.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 15, 2008 5:23 PM

Warwick's post at 2:16 pm seems to have stopped those 2 trolls in their tracks.

Posted by: Mark R at February 15, 2008 5:23 PM

Well, one of them, at least...

Posted by: Mark R at February 15, 2008 5:26 PM

Honey Pot, if somebody other than the shooter had been armed, chances ate they'd ALL be alive. Funny thing happens when you screw a gun into somebody's ear, they usually stop what they are doing and stand really still. If they don't you shoot 'em and -then- they stop. That's why we like guns.

Honey Pot, the trouble with the Left in this regard is twofold. First and most important, socialists believe people only behave properly when somebody makes them. If there were no laws and cops, we would all kill each other.

Second, if people can't resist it is easier to mold and shape them into the Utopian idea you want. Currently the Utopian ideal is humble peasants living ecologically sound lives with minimum impact on Mother Gaia.

Which is all wonderful and great, but you keep having these pesky unintended consequences. Like gun free zone equals shooting gallery.

That's what irritates me about Lefties. Ten seconds of real thought would tell you that cops and laws can't be what keeps people peaceful. For one thing, there's never a cop around when you need one.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 5:27 PM

Kathy, The guy went on a rampage because he was severely mentally ill, not because he may or may not have been a liberal. Why did you post this?

Posted by: Dante at February 15, 2008 5:29 PM

I see Johnny is pretending the Left didn't cause this problem in the first place. Hands over the ears everyone, and sing Kumbaya real loud until the bad men go away!

Kumbaya, you dork, kumbayaaaaa!

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 5:32 PM

Trust the right wing losers like Shaidle and Phantom to turn this into a partisan issue. There are only two things worthy of consideration here: this person had mental problems and he had access to a gun.

Even though it seems that a recurring fantasy of right wingers is to wish for a return to the days of the "wild west", where everyone is armed, the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you.

Carry on telling each other how tough you are...

Posted by: lberia at February 15, 2008 5:53 PM

I'm with Dante on this. The guy was mentally ill. This is a tragedy, in which 5 innocent victims lost their lives, in addition to the shooter. Many others were injured. We don't know all of the details. They haven't even had the funerals yet. Using a tragedy like this to score fake political points against the left is just sad, and makes anyone who does so look petty and ridiculous, at best.

Posted by: Jimbo at February 15, 2008 6:02 PM

"...the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you."

Damn right I would. Because I live in CanaDUH, where only gangbangers and Mohawk Warriors are authorized to have guns.

Carry on telling yourself how progressive you are.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 6:06 PM

"Carry on telling each other how tough you are..."

A big thank you to Lavrenty, ringo and the rest. Seriously, would this be nearly as much fun without them? Who could do without their hysterical, melodramatic preaching? I shall carry on enjoying myself...

Posted by: christopher rivers at February 15, 2008 6:07 PM

The two social workers that live in our town and work in the big city are the angryiest bitches I have ever come across, everything is somebodys fault but theirs, they even take their insipid lefty road show to the stages of our little local concerts singing homeless people laments and angry activist save the planet crap to the families at christmas concerts. Hey Johny ringo you can kiss one of my bulls testicles if you don't like the truth, maybe some testoserone might run off on you and make a man of you.

Posted by: bartinsky at February 15, 2008 6:15 PM

"Yes, because clearly, he was afraid of dying. He was so afraid of getting shot to death that he shot himself to death."

Kevin,
if he had simply wanted to commit "suicide by cop" he could have driven someplace where police were nearby and start busting caps.

He drove over 100 miles to a rural community and a university where he knew resistance would probably not be forthcoming.

This is all laughably abstract to me.

Like many, I can still remember the first time I had to crawl through a live-fire infiltration range in the low-crawl position, navigating barbed wire, ditches, and other obstacles, while tracer bullets zipped over my head.

This was the first time, so there were people out there crying and frozen in position. I made it through OK, but I was hugging the ground like she was the most beautiful actress in the world.

When the real guns come out and are aimed at you, and perhaps even a round or two goes over your head, your initial plans are over.

Sometimes in boxing they say that everybody has a plan until they get hit.

It's all simple: he comes through the door and there are guys who are going to blow him away, and that is possibly all it's going to take to realize the difference between an abstract scenario and really a dangerous, threatening contingent before him.

If he is not deterred, then he gets blown away.

Either way a lot of people are safe who otherwise would have fallen to this maniac.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 15, 2008 6:17 PM

Dante and Jimbo, I think you really miss the point on this one. Any time some psycho goes on a rampage like this one, the leftist minds out there like to point out the psycho's political leanings if the psycho happens to have been right leaning. If the psycho happens to be left leaning, as in this case, they won't mention it.

Posted by: pete at February 15, 2008 6:18 PM

Never happen Bartinsky. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

However you can make a hawk out of a Lefty. There's no hawk so fierce as a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe if Johnny hangs around Jane/Finch for a while singing Kumbaya...

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 6:20 PM

Leberia:You are right it's mental illness not political or religious bent, but isn't it odd though how often the loonies are of a certain religion or often have strong leftist political beliefs.

You heard about the shooter in West Virginia on some campus law school?

Probably not: Other (ARMED) students (faculty?) had him in their sights within seconds and subdued and sat upon shortly afterwards. Eventually the cops showed up and took over.
I can't recall what his animus was, off hand.

How about that church where some raving anti-christian showed up and potted a couple of people in the parking lot and then made a move into the church. Pity for him the lady usher was armed, and gave him no time to shoot anybody in the church.

I could go on and on. I'll spare you.

Yes, guns are dangerous, there are occasional tragic accidents. But it works both ways, and there are lot more calm honest folk around willing to carry, than loonies and criminals out to commit mayhem.


It's kind of like tyranies - some how (just by coincidence) it's always the leftist ones that are multi-mega-murderers, and the rightist Pinochet's of this world ( though nasty pieces of work) only manage the occasional massacre. Nevermind mind that when they finally go, or are booted out, how it's one side that leaves the economy in a shambles - or not - , while the other leaves scorched earth.

Pick your poison.

Posted by: Hrolfr at February 15, 2008 6:27 PM

Kathy, The guy went on a rampage because he was severely mentally ill, not because he may or may not have been a liberal. Why did you post this?

ummm.... because liberalism is a mental disorder?

Posted by: Richard Evans at February 15, 2008 6:34 PM

"...the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you."

Look, in the real world it's not a matter of whether you piss your pants or not. You've still got to blow away the bad guy.

When you shoot him, your object is not specifically to kill him, though of course this is a possibility.

Your object is to stop him.

When we come under the pressure of such circumstances, the central nervous system automatically puts us in a fight-or-flight mode.

Naturally, when something like this happens you're either going to freeze, run, or fight back.

Among the first-responder contingent among military and police, the response of the nervous system is changed to one of fight.

Back when I was teaching boxing, my favorite students were intellectuals who had never responded aggressively in their lives.

I always enjoyed watching them discover the possibilites and potential in dealing with confrontation without shrinking from it.

If the only thing that you can see in yourself is the inability to confront violence aggressively, then you're going to have trouble realizing that there are those who have come sufficiently to grips with their own nature and own central nervous system to respond aggressively if it's necessary.

It's not necessarily a matter of courage. Maybe someone would piss their pants. But if they got the job done, and the bad guy was taken out of the game, it's a good day.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 15, 2008 6:37 PM

I was thinking: now that universities have become the mass-murder site of choice by madmen, maybe universities need a "designated gun bearer" and "contingent designated gun bearer" in every class. He/She would be stringently vetted of course, and perhaps paid some kind of stipend to help with books and stuff.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at February 15, 2008 6:48 PM

Greg said: 'if he had simply wanted to commit "suicide by cop"'

I'm not following you. Who said that was his intention?

Also, I'm curious how you determined that he chose a rural university because he knew there would be no guns. Why not a day care center? Aren't there usually more guns in rural areas?

But, I'm just messing with you a bit. I understand your point. If there had been people in the audience who had guns in their belts they might have had fewer casualties -- notwithstanding your observation that when the bullets fly most people can't find their crotch let alone their pistol. It's a harm reduction thing right? It's meant to minimize the casualties when this kind of attack happens. Better to have the general population packing so that if some crazy person starts shooting fewer people will get killed? The fewer innocent people killed the better, right?

So, since this guy doesn't seem to have a criminal background, I'm just wondering how many innocent people would have died if the most lethal weapon he could find was a kitchen knife. That's how the other part of the argument goes isn't it: guns don't kill people, people kill people right? Except guns are a lot more effective.

Now, I'm no stranger to handguns. Neither are my daughters. In fact one of them shoots at least as well as I can. But the notion that we'd all be safer if we carried them around with us seems badly flawed. I can't imagine a less safe place than a campus fraternity full of armed, drunk teenagers.

Posted by: Kevin at February 15, 2008 6:57 PM

They could have used this 80 year old protecting them, I bet this madman would have only got off a shot or to and this 80 year old would have put him down.
from Hot Air
Second Amendment feelgood story of the day
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/15/video-second-amendment-feelgood-story-of-the-day/

Posted by: alan at February 15, 2008 7:10 PM

Kevin, do you feel endangered at the range? I mean, everybody's got a gun! I can't imagine a less safe place than a gun range, all those...guns!

"I'm just wondering how many innocent people would have died if the most lethal weapon he could find was a kitchen knife." Maybe only one or two, Kevin. Smaller ones.

Would that be ok?

Just one problem, there is no possible way you can arrange to vanish all the guns in North America. If nothing else, people will make them in the garage. You can do that, y'know. Bridgeport mill, maybe a lathe, a bit of welding and you've got a nice Sten gun. Or hey, roll a cop! Presto, nice new gun. For more on this phenomenon, see Britain.

Lets live in the real world, shall we? In the real world, when the law stops banning people from carrying in self defense the crime rate goes -down-. Mass shootings only happen when nobody can shoot back. For more on this phenomenon see Israel. Even drunk loser teenagers carry heat in Israel, Kevin. They carry heavy, too.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 7:23 PM

"Social Justice": the forced application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.
Not necessarily in this order:
1.Global Warming
2.Ozone Depletion
3.DDT
4.Multi-Culturalism
5.Human Rights Commissions
6.United Nations
7.Gun Control
8.Open Border Immigration
9.Anti-Smoking Legislation
10.Government Imposed Health Care

can anyone think of a few more?

Posted by: sumbuddy at February 15, 2008 7:36 PM

The lefties here seem to consistently overlook a major problem in their response to these sorts of incidents; when something like this DOES happen (and they WILL happen, regardless of what laws are passed), you have to call someone WITH A GUN to try to protect you, and hope that this person (WITH A GUN) gets there in time to actually help you. Remember, when seconds count, the police are usually no more than 5 or 10 minutes away.

Posted by: SDC at February 15, 2008 7:43 PM

Phantom-

Do you drink at the range? Are you 19? If you do, then let me know which range it is and I'll choose another.

"Maybe only one or two, Kevin. Smaller ones."

Good. We agree on at least two thing: (1) the more effective the weapon used the higher the casualties and (2) if this fellow had not had access to effective weapons there would have been fewer casualties. This is the ideal case for the argument that access to effective weapons makes it safer and we agree that it doesn't.

Now it seems reasonable that we can generalize this to other cases like accidents -- which, along with stupidity are the primary causes of gun related deaths . So it would seem that the lower the availability of guns the lower the death rate.

So, if fewer dead people is a good thing then it seems to follow that fewer available guns is a good thing.

It is indeed impossible to get rid of all guns. Fortunately you don't have to get rid of them *all* to reduce the death rate.

Mass shootings happen all over North America and all over the planet. They happen in Canada where you can't shoot back and they happen in States where you can. It seems that they happen more frequently in jurisdictions where guns are more available.

Also, it seems counter intuitive that a person determined to kill themselves after killing others would be deterred by the possibility of being killed.

Posted by: Kevin at February 15, 2008 7:53 PM

I thought us lefties were all gay sissy boys who hated guns and violence and aggression.

But, now, according to the renowned geniuses at SDA, we're gun-toting maniacs who ache to shoot up all those lefty college campuses.

Should be a useful skillset for us liberal fascists - especially once our Islamofascist overlords arrive.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 15, 2008 8:07 PM

The problem with "gun-free zones" is that they are not gun-free.

As soon as the bad guy walks in with a piece it's no longer a gun-free zone.

Inasmuch as it is impossible to create a gun-free zone (well, without martial law, and extremely stringent conditions), the question becomes who will be armed when the bad guy crosses the threshold? Who will stop him?

I think there are a lot of good answers to this question that do not involve everyone in the university being defenseless.

Incidentally, about that live-fire infiltraton range I mentioned earlier, I was 17 at the time, and it occurs to me that a lot of those guys in Afghanistan have yet to see their 20th birthday.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 15, 2008 8:11 PM

The bodies aren't even cold yet and 5 Feet of Fugly's making their deaths into political fodder.

Ghoul.

Posted by: volik at February 15, 2008 8:12 PM

Kevin:

Who in hell, assuming they are rational persons, would EVER drink alcohol at a range, or anywhere else when they are handling firearms? No-one that I know. Perhaps you move in different circles than I do. And what range would ever tolerate such behaviour?

And do you really feel more safe now that a bunch of ranchers, farmers, duck hunters and deer hunters have been forced to register their long guns?

What a pointless, useless, and regrettably outrageously expensive exercise...

Posted by: Bruce at February 15, 2008 8:18 PM

He might ve voted Democratic, and Tim McVeigh might have voted Republican.

Whats the point of the question anyhow? Nutcases abound in both parties.

Posted by: sput at February 15, 2008 8:19 PM

In 2005 there were 789 unintentional firearm deaths in the US.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

How many mass shootings were there? Certainly not 789. The odds of getting shot and killed accidentally are greater than dying from a mass shooting in a school or elsewhere.

It stands to reason that if everyone was armed, the number of unintentional firearm deaths would go up. But keep dreaming that packin' heat will make you safer.

Posted by: lberia at February 15, 2008 8:21 PM

Sure Kevin it would seem that way but it isn't. The experience in Britain indicates that removing guns from public access does not reduce the number of shootings. It -increases- them. Israel's example indicates the reverse is also true.

I suggest you go read the classics by John Lott, Gary Kleck, Dr. Mauser and etc. before reciting the anti-gun boiler plate.

You should also be aware that the media does not report cases where would-be shooters are stopped by armed citizens. There's a whole big passle of people out there devoted to keeping this scam alive.

As to this particular shooter, he planned it.

"The gunman who fatally shot five students before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University lecture hall likely planned his murder spree at least a week in advance, investigators said today."
abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4293081&page=1

I commend to your attention the paper "Multiple Victim Shootings" by John Lott, abstract at

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929

Its the only trustworthy statistical analysis on the subject available of which I am aware. His conclusions will surprise you I'm sure.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 15, 2008 8:26 PM

iberia:

In 2006 there were 43,443 motor vehicle deaths in the US. Pretty much all, of which, were "unintentional".

And your point is....what exactly?

Posted by: Bruce at February 15, 2008 8:28 PM

Bruce


thanx, I was going to sound the fool out


statistics without context is a fool's game


and lberia is a fool of the first kind

Posted by: GYM at February 15, 2008 8:52 PM

The guy went on a rampage because he was severely mentally ill...

There is no evidence of that. "Severely mentally ill" means psychotic, there is no evidence of that. The "severely mentally ill" aren't as organized nor do they have a successful college history. In fact on most of these creeps aren't identified with a major mental illness that has psychosis as a feature.

I thought us lefties were all gay sissy boys who hated guns and violence and aggression.

"Sissy boys", you got that part right including the disproportinately dysfunctional violence part. History isn't very kind to "sissy" boys.....wikipedia Stalin and Hitler's mommy problems - add any of the usual violent anti-social suspects like Charles Manson to Jeffrey Dalmer and so many of the sissified little guy's with a rage problem. Men with wholesome role models aren't the typical prison inmate.

Posted by: penny at February 15, 2008 8:54 PM

kevin


restrict guns, and those who kill other and then commit suicide will find other means, and bombs can kill a lot more effectively


you can make a couple dozen different bombs just out of house hold and industrial products


I won't even mention fertilizer

Posted by: GYM at February 15, 2008 8:56 PM

People were murdered. It is not a tragedy, it's a CRIME. That the criminal in question self-executed (thus saving millions in court costs) is a side issue-as is his 'insanity' or imbalance of personality.

a CRIME was committed, the perpetrator is dead.

Now, here's something to consider: Same generation as the rash of school-shooters in the '80s, on "Medication" (if the reports be true) for personality dysfunctions-similar to the school-shooters in the '90s, a "Soft"/Non-sciences major with extremist polticical/social views.

He targeted a university he was familiar with, but did not attend, where the students, faculty, and security were unarmed. (Similar in some ways to the university shootings earlier this decade).

He chose the most powerful weapons he had available-but you know what? it doesn't matter if he used guns, or made a bomb (and it's rather easy to make bombs, even with the restrictions on fertilizers, you don't need better than a high-school grasp of chemistry and common cooking implements).

There's no change in the law, or new law, or restriction or lifting of restrictions that will stop a man who is intent on killing people, then dying himself. If laws worked, the Army wouldn't be still in Baghdad trying to stabilize the situation there, Washington D.C. (outside of tourist areas) would be a safe and pleasant place to live, etc. etc.

It doesn't matter that the shooter is crazy, it only matters that he chose to commit murder in a place he KNEW no one could stop him.

Posted by: Cannonshop at February 15, 2008 9:00 PM

Hmmm... so taking berry-boy's "logic" further, if we had more people with guns, we'd have more leftist retards accidentally shooting themselves. Somehow, I fail to see a downside

And yeah socialism=mental illness, therefore socialist=mentally ill

Keep on talking, lefties.. my contempt for your particularly idiotic sub-species just keeps growing. Right now, you're neck and neck with my yorkies in terms of perceived intelligence.

Posted by: Caveman at February 15, 2008 9:03 PM

Kathy Shaidle's post, and the subsequent comments by the SDA brigade, has armed me (yuk yuk) with sufficient evidence to pose the following question:

"Were people always this dumb, or did the internet open up a cosmic portal to stupid?"

Discuss.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 15, 2008 9:04 PM

I think your existence is proof of that, Johnny....

Nice try nonetheless.

Posted by: Caveman at February 15, 2008 9:11 PM

JohnnyRingo stated:

"Were people always this dumb, or did the internet open up a cosmic portal to stupid?"

Well JR, in your case, I suppose the correct answer would be "YES".

Although, having managed a couple of degrees, I don't consider myself "stupid". But given that I was in the "business" degree mode, according to university rules, I had to take a number of liberal arts courses in order to complete my degrees.

So in THOSE courses, rather than communicating rational thoughts and opinions, I was forced to parrot back the inane opinions and positions of the profs in what we termed "bird courses"...to do otherwise would have meant a bad grade.

So...not being stupid...I acquiesed.

That's life. And....that means, JohnnyRingo...you're STILL stupid...

Posted by: Bruce at February 15, 2008 9:36 PM

Bruce, GYM and caveman:

Proof that the movie "Idiocracy" was much more than just satire.

Posted by: lberia at February 15, 2008 9:45 PM

Liberia
Your stupidty and ignorance is beyond the pale when you use statiscally tiny numbers to prove the "significance" or "dangerous" nature of firearms.
Like Bruce who used auto accidents to point out the irrelevance.
There are other more drastic examples:
Where is the concern there are almost 600,000 people in the US killed a year from:
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000
medical errorS 98,000
Bedsores 115,000
Infection 88,000
Malnutrition 108,800
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136
Surgery-Related 32,000

Like just about every other issue the Left focuses on from AGW to gun control. It is the ignorant left that distracts people from real issues in demented effort to prove superiority.


Posted by: Claude at February 15, 2008 10:00 PM

Excuse me, there are people here advocating arming all people because of the "statistically tiny numbers" of deaths cause by deranged gunman. This despite the fact that the number of people killed accidentally by firearms is far greater than that of those killed by deranged gunmen.

The stupidity of the right is infinite.

Posted by: lberia at February 15, 2008 10:07 PM

Kevin, if "It is indeed impossible to get rid of all guns", can you please show us even a SINGLE example of this happening, anywhere in the world? I've handled firearms that were made entirely IN PRISON, out of nothing more complicated than a pop can, match heads, AA batteries, and steel wool, and they were every bit as deadly as any factory-produced firearm ever made. Any one who walks into a hardware store with $10 in their pocket has access to everything they need to make a perfectly functional firearm, unless you plan on prohibiting indoor plumbing. On a national scale, the closest thing to your mythical "gun-free" country would have to be Jamaica, where the private ownership of firearms has been prohibited for over 30 years; Jamaica consistently ranks as one of the most violent countries in the WORLD, with a per-capita murder rate more than 20 times that of the United States. Now, if they can't enforce a ban on a relatively tiny ISLAND, can you please explain how you would go about enforcing said ban on an entire CONTINENT?

Posted by: SDC at February 15, 2008 10:09 PM

Bruce-

Exactly my point. A range is safe because people are not young and drunk. A college fraternity would be remarkably unsafe -- as you seem to agree.

Greg in Dallas-

Yes, you can never make them gun free zones. There is always a risk and we've seen two tragic examples recently. The question I was addressing was whether having students carrying loaded pistols around with them to class would make the environment safer or less safe. I think less safe but I agree completely that there must be good answers somewhere in between. I wish more people spent more time talking about those ones.

( also, I appreciate the civil tone )

SDC-

I'm not sure but I think you misread my comment. Do you want me to give you an example of a place in the world where it was not possible to get rid of all the guns? Um, everywhere

Phantom-

So, your contention is that universities would be safe overall if everyone was armed?

Posted by: Kevin at February 15, 2008 10:40 PM

The point is, the supply of firearms necessary to allow these sorts of things to happen is ALWAYS going to be more than enough, no matter what the laws say. In that case, do we A) treat everyone like they are probable mass murderers, and pass restrictive laws that remove those peoples' only effective means of self-defence; or do we B) acknowledge that the only person or people who can reasonably protect the victim(s) of a crime is/are those victims, and allow them to protect themselves if they wish to do so? Those studies in the US that look at this issue show that people who have CCW permits are SAFER and MORE RESPONSIBLE with their firearms than the POLICE are, and are less likely to shoot someone by accident than the police are. If "more guns equals more murders", why don't we see that actually happening in those US states that issue CCW permits? If "more guns equals more murders", I would have expected to see the US murder rate skyrocket over the last few years, as 12 more states have passed CCW laws, the federal "ugly gun ban" was allowed to sunset, and 70 million more firearms were sold into the civilian market. In fact, since 1993 (when the LIEberals passed Canada's universal registration law), the US murder rate has dropped by more than 40%, while Canada's has gone down by less than 7% (and the US didn't need to piss $2 billion dollars down the toilet to get that drop).

Posted by: SDC at February 15, 2008 11:28 PM

Shooting people in a rage besides the narcissism involved is a pretty primative coping skill.

I've heard it said that many of these cases are just dramatic suicides. If you're unbalanced and want to take the easy way out, why off yerself quietly when you can do it with a bang (so to speak) and flip an ultimate, unanswerable middle finger to the rest of the sane world?

It's a disturbing trend if this is true.

Posted by: PiperPaul at February 15, 2008 11:54 PM

lberia: the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you.

You know, you are probably right about that. I think I would piss my pants. This is not something I am proud of. What do you think you would do? Do you also think you would piss your pants? I suspect you would.

So, what happens now? I am leaning towards becoming familiar with firearms and self-defence so I won't piss my pants should this happen. What are you going to do?

Posted by: randall g at February 15, 2008 11:56 PM

"Yes, because clearly, he was afraid of dying. He was so afraid of getting shot to death that he shot himself to death."

Obviously he planned to die and was not afraid of it. In this I agree with Bill Maher - this takes a lot of resolve and is not an act of cowardice.

But think of this. He knew that when he showed up in that location and started shooting, the story would be all about him. He never got enough attention and maybe this would provide it.

So he strides out onto the lecture stage and pulls out his shotgun, and points it at the audience. Many see it and start dropping to the floor.

A student in the third row, with a concealed carry permit, kneels on the floor and pulls out his pistol. He steadies it on the seats in front of him and aims carefully for the centre of mass. In a second the shooter staggers back drops his weapon and collapses to the floor, gushing his lifeblood.

Now the media hero is the guy who killed the crazy asshole. The crazy asshole may think that this likelihood is not worth dying for. We'll never know.

Posted by: randall g at February 16, 2008 12:07 AM

Kevin,
I respect your appreciation for my civil tone.

However, in all candor I must admit that a civil tone is easy for me.

Unlike my Canadian brothers and sisters, my gun rights are secure. The right to own firearms is constitutionally protected. Not protected by In regulation or statute, but an endowment and enfranchisement as part of my inherent rights as a citizen of America.

In fact it is the Second Amendment simply because our founding fathers understood that without its establishment all other rights to follow would be insecure.

My Canadian brothers and sisters have no such protection. My rights are reinforced by the National Rifle Association which is a powerful, grassroots political organization dedicated to the preservation of our firearm rights. The NRA is a powerful lobby and voice for freedom in the United States, and I am proud to say that I am a card-carrying member.

Even in the event of a liberal presidency, I am confident that my firearm rights will remain preserved. We have a lot of influence with Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle. Down here running against guns is a losing issue.

Additionally, I have noticed that when Canadians begin to post about this subject, very quickly the argument enters the abstract realm and consideration of the social consequences of firearms relative to society.

Down here gun ownership is regarded as a personal right. Although states and municipalities think about this and form their own laws relative to it, no one has ever successfully been able to categorize gun ownership as the province of society.

Even famous liberal barristers have been afraid to tackle this issue because the constitution so clearly distinguishes gun ownership as a personal right and not within the province of society to make determinations about.

So for us gun ownership is about what I do if suddenly there is the tinkle of broken glass while I am in mid-sentence typing this. There would be no time for police to arrive, even if there were time to call them. But since I have a number of firearms within easy reach, and since my wife is a better shot than I am, we have every possibility of defending ourselves successfully and living to tell the tale.

I think that it is a scandal that my Canadian brothers and sisters have been deprived of this most essential human need. And the elimination of sportsmen taking to the field for the comradeship, edification, and good eating that comes from hunting is tyrannical.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 16, 2008 1:00 AM

Well, Kathy, at the risk of launching something ad hominem, your context for the post is just so dumb. Note the word "feel". Come on. For God's sake. That's all you got? And you figure the kid voted Democrat? Man, Kathy, I know you have not got a day job, but when you get one, don't give it up just yet...

Posted by: John Daly at February 16, 2008 1:08 AM

I consider myself very rightwing, yet, I find this post to be in incredibly bad taste. The killers political bent has nothing to do with his mental illness nor with his cowardly deed. It could just as easily have been a die-hard Iraq War-cheering Bush supporting sicko who did this.

Gun control, and security issues are a different thing … let’s not get those mixed up with mental illness. What would this post be, if the shooter had had an MBA and had expressed his capitalist "feelings." We'd be reading the same kind of crap, but in reverse, on some lefty blog.

Posted by: Paul2 at February 16, 2008 1:20 AM

"lberia: the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you."

Fact is Iberia, I was in the RCMP for nearly 30 years. But I acknowledge that I had a more than an "active" career than most members.

But, during my time in service, I was shot at 5 or 6 times...on two occasions, I actually heard the bullet pass by my head (Until that happened, I used to scoff at those who claimed they heard the bullets coming towards them).


Point being: some of us...not all..have "been there, done that".

Oh....and by the way....I didn't piss my pants any any such occasion....although on a couple of occasions, I probably should have...

Posted by: Bruce at February 16, 2008 2:26 AM

"lberia: the fact is that most of you people would piss your pants if a shooter came after you."

Fact is Iberia, I was in the RCMP for nearly 30 years. But I acknowledge that I had a more than an "active" career than most members.

But, during my time in service, I was shot at 5 or 6 times...on two occasions, I actually heard the bullet pass by my head (Until that happened, I used to scoff at those who claimed they heard the bullets coming towards them).


Point being: some of us...not all..have "been there, done that".

Oh....and by the way....I didn't piss my pants any any such occasion....although on a couple of occasions, I probably should have...

Posted by: Bruce at February 16, 2008 2:26 AM

Greg in Dallas:

I have to say that I have not heard a US position posited in a more factual, personal and responsible manner than what you expressed. Thank you for that.

As a responsible Canadian hand-gun owner, I share your sentiments. Living in the Vancouver area, with the highest rates of violent and property crime in North America, I am less than impressed when I am told by our police, who are so over-burdened by calls, that the best they can do is a response rate to "urgent" calls is 13 minutes.

Spare me the rhetoric...I'll take care of it myself...thank you....

Posted by: Bruce at February 16, 2008 2:58 AM

Greg in Dallas:

I have to say that I have not heard a US position posited in a more factual, personal and responsible manner than what you expressed. Thank you for that.

As a responsible Canadian hand-gun owner, I share your sentiments. Living in the Vancouver area, with the highest rates of violent and property crime in North America, I am less than impressed when I am told by our poice, who are so over-burdened by calls, that the best they can do is a response rate to "urgent" calls is 13 minutes.

Spare me the rhetoric...I'll take care of it myself...thank you....

Posted by: Bruce at February 16, 2008 2:58 AM

Apologies for the double-posting...gotta be the server....

Posted by: Bruce at February 16, 2008 3:15 AM

Mao ,Stalin,Pol Pot and others killed millions for the cause of 'Social Justice", Castro locks people up in the name of Social Justice, and Hugo is on the way there.

Posted by: stephen Reeves at February 16, 2008 7:30 AM

These type of stories always generate great comments. Well, up to a point that is...

"Mass shootings only happen when nobody can shoot back. For more on this phenomenon see Israel. Even drunk loser teenagers carry heat in Israel, Kevin. They carry heavy, too. - Phantom"

Air Canada
Monday February 18, 2008
Flight: AC084 Direct One-way
Departs: Toronto 5:25PM Feb 18
Arrive: Tel Aviv 11:15AM +1 day
First Class Fare: $1800.00
Eligible for Executive Class upgrade.

Enjoy!


Posted by: Firestarter5 at February 16, 2008 8:37 AM

"How the bloody hell someone can twist this tragedy into an indictment on the left is beyond me"

Thankfully, the left aren't spinning the tragedy for politcal aims.

However, FWIW, I think it's rather in bad taste to score political points on the backs of such a terrible event when the victims are not yet buried. This applies to those on both the left and the right. Somebody posted in a long-forgotten SDA thread (I paraphrase) "When you view every event through a political lens, you take away the humanity from people".

Too true.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

Posted by: mhb at February 16, 2008 9:37 AM

Serial killer Ted Bundy not only voted Republican, he worked for them.

According to Wikipedia:

"After his discovery, Bundy became a more focused and dominant person. In 1968, he managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Presidential campaign and attended the 1968 Republican convention in Miami as a Rockefeller supporter. […]

"Soon afterward, he again went to work for the state Republican Party, which included a close relationship with Gov. Daniel J. Evans. During the campaign, Bundy followed Evans’ Democratic opponent around the state, tape recording his speeches and reporting back to Evans personally. A minor scandal later followed when the Democrats found out about Bundy, who had been posing as a college student."

As Kathy might suggest, unpack to your hearts' content.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 16, 2008 9:59 AM

Nice job of avoiding the issues Johnny. You're a perfect Lefty.

Now, about those gun-free zones. Which party is the champion of the whole gun-free environment idea, Johnny baby? Go on, you can do it, starts with a "D", ends in "rat". Say it with me now...

Posted by: The Phantom at February 16, 2008 10:31 AM

Yes, because clearly, he was afraid of dying. He was so afraid of getting shot to death that he shot himself to death.

Your leftist logic missed the point that obviously he was afraid of dying before he'd killed a few people. Otherwise he would have just killed himself.

Posted by: ol hoss at February 16, 2008 11:10 AM

This shooter was a nutbar who was off his meds. Mental illness (other than the leftard type I mean) is a huge problem. This could happen to anyone. We used to have these people in hospitals where they could be treated and were no danger to society. Now they have the right to not get treated, which for a lot of them means living on the streets because they are unable to function without treatment. This is apparently kinder and gentler than the old way.

Posted by: minuteman at February 16, 2008 11:10 AM

He wasn't so crazy that he went where people are armed to do his killing. Leftardism believes in sharing the misery and that's exactly what he did.

Posted by: ol hoss at February 16, 2008 11:17 AM

Penney Wrote "There is no evidence of that. "Severely mentally ill" means psychotic, there is no evidence of that. The "severely mentally ill" aren't as organized nor do they have a successful college history. In fact on most of these creeps aren't identified with a major mental illness that has psychosis as a feature."


And you don't believe going on a rampage that kills five people after going off your medication indicates a severe mental illness? Furthermore, you have a distorted view of what a mental illness is and how it affects people - you don't think that they could complete a university degree? When most people are on their medications they are by and large much better and capable of functioning like anyone else. Leave the comments on mental illness to those in the medical community.

Posted by: Dante at February 16, 2008 12:05 PM

Phantom, I'm simply using Kathy Shaidle's immensely intelligent, well-reasoned and carefully thought-out logic, and just applying it to another mass murderer.

What? Is there some problem? Where does my pointing out the example of Ted Bundy, a conservative mass murderer, go wrong in carrying forth her discussion point? I mean, Ted Bundy actually worked for the Republicans. Ted Bundy was highly educated. And Ted Bundy killed a lot of college students.

I'm very sorry Phantom, but Shaidle's post was very clear: a political view and education is very much part and parcel of said person's proclivity to commit mass murder. Ergo, highly educated conservative-minded people are quite likely to kill other students. (And while I'm not clear how you can confirm voting intent from person who once wrote that he favours "social justice," let's just make a wild leap of faith and assume Shaidle is right.)

So again, where is the breakdown in Kathy Shaidle's logic? Seems straightforward to me...if that's the game you want to play.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 16, 2008 12:34 PM

Yeah I was wondering why Bundy's name didnt show up earlier.

Nobody's swtiching issues here. If you are going to link political views with this incident then you might as well be uniform about it.

Posted by: sput at February 16, 2008 12:49 PM

Even the champions of Shaidle's Very Smrt Logic have to admit they're staining the bounds of rational thought on this one. The guy wasn't Muslim, gay, a Democratic activist, war protester, alcoholic, or a heroin addict...

...but maybe he was a vegetarian who excercised and didn't smoke. In other words, Liberal Fascist!!

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at February 16, 2008 1:24 PM

Response from the Right: crickets chirping...

Posted by: lberia at February 16, 2008 2:06 PM

Posted by: lberia at February 15, 2008 5:53 PM

"There are only two things worthy of consideration here: this person had mental problems and he had access to a gun."

One, maybe his mental problems are caused by all the "Social Justice" courses and causes he was involved in.

Two, if the leftards would allow people with mental issues into a database he wouldn't have gotten a gun in the first place.


Posted by: cdn.infidel at February 16, 2008 4:09 PM

Attn Penny

And all those who act like they know everything but dont really know anything.

"There is no evidence of that. "Severely mentally ill" means psychotic, there is no evidence of that. The "severely mentally ill" aren't as organized nor do they have a successful college history. In fact on most of these creeps aren't identified with a major mental illness that has psychosis as a feature. "

Townhall - the right wing american website has an interesting story that should put an end to another one of your myths.

"Professors and students knew him as a bright, helpful scholar, but his past included a stint in a mental health center."

"A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said Kazmierczak had been placed there after high school by his parents. He used to cut himself and had resisted taking his medications, she said."

""He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem.""

"He also had a short-lived stint as a prison guard that ended abruptly when he didn't show up for work. He was in the Army for about six months in 2001-02, but he told a friend he'd gotten a psychological discharge."

"Aaron Funsfinn, who knew Kazmierczak at NIU, noted that Kazmierczak had become interested in guns in recent years, but said he wasn't alarmed by his friend's outspoken support for gun ownership.

"He was very rational and reasoned," said Funsfinn, 23."

""Profiling would not have worked with Steve. People would let him into their home," she said. "People feel so bad that we didn't know he was suffering like this.""

Right, well people who are admitted to mental health centers and who are on medication, are generally mentally unsound.

Is that enough evidence for you or are we going to continue this bullsh*&?

How much real information is there on this website? And how much of it is penny-esque hearsay?

cdn. infidel

"At least one criminal background check was performed _ Kazmierczak had no criminal record.

Kazmierczak had a state police-issued FOID, a firearms owners identification card, which is required in Illinois to own a gun, authorities said. Such cards are rarely issued to those with recent mental health problems. And since Kazmierczak's stay in the mental health center was more than five years ago, it didn't raise red flags."

Dont see any mention of any "leftards" in there. Or of his mental health problems coinciding with his social justice courses - appears they started before them.

Now listen to the sound of silence. Another pointless thread will fall silent.


Posted by: sput at February 16, 2008 7:44 PM

The politicians Bundy worked for were both liberal Republicans, especially Rockefeller. Still, I'm sure there are conservative murderers out there, so I don't know if this discussion is at all productive.

Posted by: James Kabala at February 16, 2008 9:16 PM

Say, sput. Did you know there's a mental health question on the federal form you have to sign to buy a gun? Buddy lied on those forms.

Did you know there's a mental health question on the forms to get the Illinois FOID? Buddy lied again.

As I think I posted above, there's plenty of other evidence this was a pre-planned attack. He planned at least 6 days ahead, and given his other lies may have been planning for years. Meaning he didn't just "snap" because he was off his meds. They never do.

Its illegal under US Fedeal law and Illinois state law to posses firearms after being hospitalized for mental illness. Didn't stop our little friend, did it?

The net effect of this web of federal and state law is to disarm the public while providing no impediment to criminals and nuts. A target rich environment, if you will.

The reason we have all these laws started with the real live Ku Klux Klan back in the 1920's in New York with the Sullivan Act, which morphed into the "progressive" wing of the DemocRat Party and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Parts of which were lifted verbatim from Hitler's gun control act of the early 1930's. Word for word, y'know, allowing for German-English translation. Why mess with a good thing?

Leftards created the gun-free zone this guy used for a shooting gallery. Leftards arranged the loophole that allowed him to lie on innumerable gun control forms and not get caught. Leftards produce the propaganda that keeps this complex of lies in place, year after year and let mental cases shoot up schools, offices, malls and post offices year after year.

That the shooter himself was also a devoted Leftard is merely delicious irony for those of us who detest your lies and fight your obscene propaganda every day.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 17, 2008 2:46 PM
Site
Meter