Asshole Can't Get Laid, So He Murders 3 Women

[LAGC]

Figured I'd post this before an anti beat me to it:

The frustrated loner who opened fire on an aerobics class and murdered three women at a suburban Pittsburgh gym before killing himself left behind a vile, racist journal in which he revealed he planned the massacre for months - and "chickened out" on his first try.

Suicidal suspect George Sodini complained he'd had "no sex since July 1990" and blamed his parents, his brother, his sister - even his preacher - for the fact that "girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE."
..
..
Sodini's final, sick act came on Tuesday when he strolled into an LA Fitness gym in Collier, Pa., and headed for a workout room where a "Latin impact" aerobics class was underway.

He laced a duffel bag on the ground and paused to survey his targets before reaching for his guns, which were purchased legally, police said.

Fifty-two times Sodini fired before turning one of the guns on himself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/08/05/2009-08-05_gunman_in_pittsburgh_gym_massacre_george_sodini_planned_shooting_for_months_his.html

My question is, how could have gun control possibly prevented this? How can you stop someone who has no criminal record, no history of mental illness, from arming himself and going nuts? And even if you could "ban all the guns" from being legally purchased in the first place, what would stop someone so demented from obtaining weapons illegally?

It just goes to show we need to focus on WHY someone would resort to such acts of murder in the first place, not simply try to control the particular tool used to carry them out.

[aquart]

1. Honey, he had guns that could fire FIFTY-TWO TIMES.

Sorry. The tool IS the problem.

And it's PATHETIC the way you rush in and try to pretend it isn't.

[gorfle]

4. The news reports...

The news reports that he had 6 handguns, as I recall. There are no handguns that carry more than 20 rounds that I am aware of. Even firearms that only carry 10 rounds can easily be reloaded. The fellow who shot up the immigration center a few months back discharged nearly a hundred rounds in something like 4 minutes. It's not hard to do when you have spare magazines ready to insert into the firearm.

[RamboLiberal]

12. There are 30 round magazines available

And according to news conference I just listened to he had several. He had 2 9mm handguns, 1 45 cal revolver & a .32 in his pocket. He brought 100-150 rounds of ammo. He fired 36 rounds according to the news conference. 30 from the first 9mm handgun, then remainder from 2nd 9mm except for his suicide shot which he did from the 45 revolver. The 2nd 9mm still had 12 rounds in the magazine. I'm guessing at least the 1st 9mm was a Glock for which 30 round mags are very much available.

Moffat incorrectly said these high caps were illegal while AWB was in effect. What was illegal were magazines manufactured after the AWB passed till it expired. There were plenty of pre-ban grandfathered high caps available.

And since the question will come up, Moffatt indicated he did legally purchase at least 3 of the handguns. 2 late in 2008, other this year. And he did have a carry license.

A gunman who opened fire at a health club in Collier Township Tuesday night had no relationship with any of the victims, according to police.

Allegheny County police superintendent Charles Moffatt said during a press conference Wednesday afternoon, that George Sodini walked into the L.A. Fitness in Collier Township with four handguns.

He used two 9 mm handguns to attack the victims and a .45-caliber revolver to take his own life. A .32-caliber handgun was also found, but was not used. Two extra 30-round clips were found in his duffel bag.

In all, Sodini killed three people before turning the gun on himself. Nine others were wounded in the shooting.

http://kdka.com/local/geoge.sodini.information.2.1116002.html

[gorfle]

17. I did not know that.

I'm guessing at least the 1st 9mm was a Glock for which 30 round mags are very much available.

I did not know that such magazines were available. I thought the 19-round XDM 9mm was the highest available. These 30 round magazines must be those monstrosities that protrude out of the magazine well? If it comes to that, I've seen a drum magazine for 1911's.

And he did have a carry license.

Wonderful. Here we go again. Every time one of these lunatics cuts loose I cringe in anticipation of all the howls from those who would trade liberty for safety.

[RamboLiberal]

25. Highest listed on this website is 33 rounds

http://www.gunaccessories.com/Magazines/Glock/Glock.asp

Yes they do stick out of the gun. Cute the website claims they are in limited availability due to the Obama fear.

Also I've seen these type of magazines in the custom guns of the USPSA open division. Those guns are the hot rods of the shooting world.

[gorfle]

34. I had some.

I bought two "10 round" magazines for a Springfield Armoury GI 1911 I had once. 1911's usually only hold 7 rounds. They stuck out the bottom of the gun. I think they look ugly.

[raimius]

38. License to carry

Which source stated he had a license to carry? I had not seen that.

[RamboLiberal]

44. Heard in the news conference by county officials

http://www.post-gazette.com/multimedia/?videoID=102142

[Statistical]

50. Or he had 2 15 round magazines and changed them in a matter of seconds. n/t

[RamboLiberal]

70. According to police he emptied the first gun

Then switched to the second. Apparently no reload. According to the police there were 36 rounds expended. The 2nd gun still had 12 in the magazine when he went to the 45 caliber revolver to put one shot through his own head.

[rd_kent]

6. You are right about it being a tool.

Im glad you recognize a gun for what it is... a tool. A tool can be misused by anyone. Need I drag out the car, the knife, the hammer analogies?

[Renew Deal]

7. Would guns that could fire 26 times make much of a difference?

Or 13 times?

[Raskolnik]

21. How many times should a gun be able to fire? n/t

[vagabond2009]

35. You can never ban all instruments used for killing.

He killed 3 and wounded 5(?) others. He could have just as efficient or more with a machete that he could make in his own garage, or a pipe bomb using simple kitchen ingredients.

Now, if a 300 lb guy shows up at your door with a machete or a baseball bat or his bare hands for that matter, do you want to match him for whatever medieval tool he has in his hands? Or do want something that will equalize your ability to defend yourself?

You may not want it, but other people do and you can't tell them they don't have the right, it's already been affirmed by SCOTUS. There are many many countries that have banned guns. If you don't like them, move there. Please. By the way, firearms are almost completely banned in the UK and since that time the incidence of knife crimes has SOARED. Do yourself a favor if you want to be informed, Google: "knife wounds" and look under images.

The reality is, there are bad people in the world. The reality is, we will never be able to ban everything they can use to hurt people. Guns, give good people the best chance to keep themselves and those they love from being hurt, but of course it's not a guarantee. Nothing in life is guaranteed. I think that's the biggest problem we have aside from people doing awful things like this, we think we're all guaranteed paradise. We live in a bubble, a very unique place in this world, be thankful for it, but don't take it for granted.

"7 Dead, 10 wounded in knife attack"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7445694.stm

[benEzra]

47. No, he had several guns that could fire 6 to 17 rounds each before reloading...

I'm not sure the exact capacity because I don't know the exact make/models of all the guns involved yet.

[RamboLiberal]

71. He had 30 round magazines

At the press conference regarding the LA Fitness Center shootings, Allegheny County Superintendent Charles Moffatt said that Mr. Sodini brought four guns to the gym: two 9-millimeter semi-automatics, a .32-caliber semi-automatic and a .45-caliber revolver. Superintendent Moffat said Mr. Sodini pulled one of the 9-millimeters from his bag and opened fire until he ran out of bullets, then he dropped that gun and began shooting with the second 9-millimeter. Mr. Sodini used the revolver, which he had in his pocket, to kill himself, Superintendent Moffat said. He had extra long clips in the 9-millimeters that held 30 bullets each, Superintendent Moffat said. One 9-millimeter clip was empty when recovered by police, while the other had 12 bullets remaining.

Superintendent Moffat noted that the large clips were illegal under the assault weapons ban, which was allowed to expire in 2004. When asked how he felt about that, Superintendent Moffat said "We're not going to get into that today."

The superintendent said Mr. Sodini had a permit to carry the weapons. Of the three guns police have definitively traced to Mr. Sodini, two were purchased in late 2008 and one was purchased early this year.

When police searched Mr. Sodini's home, they found rifles and shotguns, four in all.

http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/bigstory/default.aspx

[benEzra]

82. The superintendent was incorrect, 30-rounders were *never* illegal.

They were more expensive between 1994 and 2004 than before or after, but they were perfectly legal to purchase, possess, or transfer while the non-ban was in effect.

[TheWraith]

74. So how many rounds does it take to kill three people?

I'm curious. Because the smallest capacity revolver in existence will do that without reloading. The number of bullets has nothing to do with it.

[BOSSHOG]

2. He did have

the right to DEFEND HIMSELF. It says it right there in the second amendment. AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN FOR SELF DEFENSE. The exact words written by the founding fathers.

[AlinPA]

45. Some of these shooters probably feel that they are "defending themselves" against

society who in their thinking are offending them.

[raimius]

158. Feelings

Sure, they may rationalize their actions as defense against society.
Society and our justice system do have an established set of conditions on how and when force can be used in defense.
This murderer did not follow those rules.

I get what you are implying, but it just doesn't work that way.
Poor argument, IMO.

[Howardx]

3. good reason for mental health testing before gun purchase

you make an excellent point.

[LAGC]

5. What if he passed though?

How can you possibly screen out every (or even most) crazy folks? Surely someone as pathological as this guy could deceive a simple psych eval...

[iverglas]

18. ah, loaded questions

How can you possibly screen out every (or even most) crazy folks?

I dunno. Maybe it was rhetorical.

Voltaire once said Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Nothing we can do will work perfectly, so we should do nothing at all.

[rd_kent]

9. Who decides what is/isnt a good test?

Who determines if a person has passed or failed said test? If were going to administer mental health tests before allowing a person to exercise a constitutional right, then we should apply a mental health test before someone buys a car, or has a child, or buys a set of kitchen knives......

[gorfle]

8. Once again.

Once again, a mass-murder is undertaken by someone who has become so isolated from society that the come to resent society so badly that they, in a final fit of rage, go on a killing spree before committing suicide.

This guy has a great article on this phenomenon:

http://www.robertringer.com/bullying.html

These people all share a common theme: They have become ostracized from society to the point where they completely boil over with rage at society. I believe these people, once they break, are on a mission. Even if every firearm in the world vanished, these people, when they snap, would find a way to wreak their havoc anyway. If he had no gun, he may have simply blocked the fire exits like Jiverly Voong did in the immigration center shooting, and then packed his car full of 5 gallon cans of gasoline and drove it through the front window of the gym at 90 MPH.

We need to find out what it is about society that is driving elements of itself crazy and fix it.

[Endangered Specie]

55. It doesn't help that they know how much fame they will get...

Lets face it its about the quickest way to get your name on every news channel, paper, internet discussion board, and news magazine in the nation, if not on the planet... Probably your own wikipedia page too.

If they just simply offed themselves, they wouldn't get the attention they supposedly deserve. If we could stop the amount of attention these assholes get, I bet it would cut down tremendously.

Also it wouldn't hurt if people reported to police blogs of that nature.

[DrDan]

10. why is it an either-or?

Why not couple trying to understand better why these things happen with some sound gun control.

This is just one instance and you seem to be arguing that since gun control might not have prevented this, that gun control is, hence, ineffective in all gun deaths.

on edit - if more stringent gun control saves but one child's life, then it is worth the cost - and worth depriving one gun owner of his testosterone-replacement.

[X_Digger]

13. "one child's life, then it is worth the cost"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=220324

This removes any kind of objective criteria for deciding whether a piece of legislation / rule / regulatory scheme is effective or not. If crime goes down, the diminishing pool of victims is just as large to the absolutist who holds this position ("One death from guns is one death too many.") Even if crime goes up, the justification of "Well, we don't know how many more might have died without this" is given credence. Strange how a failure of the measure can lead to more of the same.

I do conflate the "if just one.." philosophy with the "one death is too many.." mantra, because it seems if you point out that the incidence of a particular crime is down, it's often followed by the second phrase.

There seems to be a disconnect between goal, action, and consequence. It's as though there is a measure of faith involved. "If this doesn't work, we must not be doing enough. I know that if we do this, eventually lives will be saved." Rarely is there serious discussion about whether or not the approach can reasonably be expected to result in the goal, it's "obvious" to those proposing action that A should lead to B. No rational discussion about the effectiveness of a law can be tolerated- those who do are painted as being against saving lives, or for killing innocents. In the absolutist's mind, it's all or none.

There's also a disturbing the ends justifies the means mentality involved. The lengths that these proponents are willing to go seems to know no bounds. Random pat-downs of the public, government tracking of ammunition sales, government tracking of guns via lojack type transmitters, door-to-door searches of those living in public housing- all have been proposed in the last year here at DU. The same kind of thinking brought us Guantanamo, torture, and warrantless wiretapping. I'm not equating the strict gun control to these, just noting that in the heads of those who propose such actions, justification is clear and absolute. "Just one life..", "One death is too many."

No consideration is given to unintended consequences. The burden on anyone else is considered inconsequential compared to the "saving of a single life". Never mind that the trust placed in the government's hands today can and most likely will be abused tomorrow under a different administration. Never mind that the very freedoms that our party claims to protect would be infringed by some of these actions. It always amazes me that this party is so adamant in it's protection of all amendments in the bill of rights except one. It can be legitimately argued that this particular amendment is as important in the preservation of the other nine as any of them, and more so than many. The same kind of incrementalism that the other side uses to infringe the other nine amendments- our own party tries to use those same tactics on the second. The only 'big picture' is the single goal- saving lives.

Saving lives is a laudable goal. But a life saved at the cost of constitutional freedoms- that's no trade worth making.

[DrDan]

19. I guess that is where we diverge. A life

to me is more valuable than a testosterone substitute.

Does the amendment state that gun ownership is an unrestricted right?

[X_Digger]

28. How far are you willing to go to save 'one life'?

If I said that I could save one life by patting down random people looking for a gun, would that be okay? How about randomly giving breathalyzers to people who leave a bar in order to catch a potential drunk driver before he kills someone's kid?

[benEzra]

46. No more than the First Amendment states that speech, press, and religion are unrestricted.

That does not mean, however, that arbitrary and capricious restrictions are constitutional.

We have a great deal of restrictions on guns in this country at the Federal and state levels. I suspect you are probably unaware of most of them.

[DrDan]

140. and more are needed

and I suspect you will object to them

[benEzra]

141. If they are aimed at curtailing the rights of the lawful and responsible, yes.

I opposed the Patriot Act, too.

There's still common ground to be found on the issue, but banning the lawful ownership of the most popular guns isn't it...

[Euromutt]

51. Do you believe this applies to everything, or only to guns?

Do you believe that we should ban privately owned motor vehicles if doing so would save one life?
Do you believe that we should ban swimming pools and fence off all bodies of water if doing do would save one life?
Do you believe we should ban all toxic household chemicals if doing so would save one life?

Or does this value you place on human life only apply selectively, namely where firearms are concerned?

Now you may argue that we can apply a cost-benefit analysis to the other items. Motor vehicles grant people mobility for work and recreational purposes. Swimming is good exercise, which will help stave off heart disease. Household chemicals kill pathogens and their vectors, which might otherwise cause disease. So, on balance, there is more benefit from keeping these things around than the cost we incur from their presence. But why should such an analysis not be applied to firearms? Even by cautious estimates, the number of violent crimes prevented by armed private citizens defending themselves or others approaches or exceeds the number of violent crimes committed using firearms. So how come that doesn't matter to you?

[DrDan]

61. weapons have one purpose - to kill

[rrneck]

66. Yes.

But to kill who?

[spin]

68. I get so tired of seeing this statement...

I carry a knife, (actually two), I use these knives as tools. One is a plain edged fixed blade knife which I use for for food prep and light tasks. One is a fully serrated edged folding knife which I use for cutting rope or wire and more difficult tasks. A knife could easily be a weapon but I am not a knife fighter and don't carry one for that purpose. The plain edged fixed blade knife is excellent for food prep as it is extremely easy to clean. The serrated folder is more of an emergency knife as it can easily slice through a seat belt. I also own two machetes which are excellent tools for clearing brush or trimming trees. They could also be used as deadly weapons. I own a fairly expensive replica civil war cavalry sword which is merely a collector item for display.

I own a bow which I use for target shooting and could use for hunting. (I don't hunt, although I am considering it because of the economic situation.) It also is a weapon and could easily be used to murder a person. I would never consider using it in such a manner.

I own an collection of firearms, the majority of which are handguns. For a period of forty years, I have enjoyed target shooting at various pistol ranges. I would estimate that I have fired on the average of 6000 rounds a year at paper targets. I have never killed an animal or a person with these weapons, nor would I want to. I could use several of these handguns for hunting if I chose to participate in this sport, but I would probably use an old Mauser bolt action rifle for this task. I could also merely collect firearms as an investment (better than the stock market), but all my firearms are shooters which ruins their value.

True, I do have several handguns primarily dedicated to home defense or concealed carry. I would only use these weapons if I had VERY good reason to believe that I, or members of my family, faced imminent serous bodily injury or death from an attacker. I am not paranoid nor do I fantasize about killing another person. I also realize that if I had to use these weapons, my life would be changed in a manner that I would never want. However, self defense is a legitimate reason for the use of reasonable force.

The statement weapons have one purpose - to kill is at the very minimum false and simplistic. Even if narrowed to "Guns have only one purpose - to kill" the statement is emotional and not based on fact or reason.

[DrDan]

81. and I get so tired of the rationalization of the "hobby" surrounding guns

[Euromutt]

154. Give us a reason why we should care what you think

Really, you've trotted out all the usual tropes as to why guns are somehow a more acute public health threat than any other item, including those that take more lives every year, but when challenged, all you can do is cast aspersions on the moral character of the people putting forth the challenges.

So give me a reason why I should give a flying fuck about your opinion; give me a reason why I should change my mind concerning the private ownership of firearms that involves an attempt at persuasion, rather than mere gainsaying, dismissal, or denigration. Do you honestly think flinging insults at me is going to encourage me to change my mind?

[DrDan]

162. I really don't care if you do or not - sorry to burst that bubble

exactly what insult did I "fling" at you

[Euromutt]

165. Oh, I think you can guess

How about the constant aspersions that anyone who disagrees with you on private ownership of firearms--let alone someone who actually owns some--is emotionally immature, morally deficient, etc.

It tends to get discussions off on the wrong foot, to put it mildly.

Interested in addressing my points in post #69, by the way? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=244827&mesg_id=245014)

[DrDan]

171. sure - be happy to respond

I think we both already know the answers, but I will respond anyway.

The purpose of guns is to kill. They achieve that purpose by "propelling a projectile at high speed".

Owners claim that a secondary purpose is target shooting. That is nothing more than attempting to be better at the real purpose - to kill.

"If the judicious application of lethal force can preserve innocent life at the expense of that of those who would take that innocent life, why is that a bad thing?" This, obviously, is not the issue. The loss of innocent lives due to the reckless behavior of gun owners or through lackluster control is the issue.

[spin]

192. Serious target shooting develops different skills than defense shooting...

a target shooter is far more deliberate than a person practicing for self defense. He usually shoots at a much more distant target and shoots for score. A background in target shooting is helpful for self defense shooting but only to a degree.

Self defense shooting is far different. Accuracy, while important, is not as critical. Speed is more important than in target shooting. Often weapons are drawn from holsters. Some variations of the sport require the shooter to seek cover, most involve movement.

Combat pistol shooting, as separate from target shooting, began to evolve in the early 1900s. William E. Fairbairn and later Rex Applegate enumerated many of the early combat pistol practices developed during their training of Office of Strategic Services and British Commando troops in World War II. These techniques live on in modern point shooting techniques. Jeff Cooper was also instrumental in establishing both a combat pistol based sport, International Practical Shooting Confederation, and a combat pistol training school, Gunsite. Cooper's methodology has become known as "The Modern Technique". The methods promoted by Applegate and Cooper differ in many respects, and to this day there are often emotional arguments between supporters of the different methodologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_pistol_shooting

[Euromutt]

195. But in that case...

"If the judicious application of lethal force can preserve innocent life at the expense of that of those who would take that innocent life, why is that a bad thing?"

This, obviously, is not the issue.

In that case, your claim that "guns only have one purpose" is essentially meaningless, isn't it?

[raimius]

159. I also get tired

I get very tired when people try to restrict what legal hobbies I wish to pursue.

I could easily claim that we should ban swords. After all, "they are only made to kill."
How do you think olympic fencers would feel about that?

[DrDan]

161. funny thing about swords

not so many sword-related deaths

[raimius]

180. Your point?

I'm just pointing out your logic for creating new restrictions is unsound.

Also, no not all guns are designed to kill.

[spin]

189. Find a local shooting range in your area...

stop by occasionally, act like you're interested in shooting and talk to the members. Don't be an asshole.

You should find the the majority of the regular members are people who are involved in the firearms hobby. They enjoy the challenge of accurate shooting. Some will be collectors and own interesting historical or rare firearms. Some will be hunters and practice with their hunting weapons to be able to humanely harvest game. Some may be competitive shooters and there is a large variety of shooting completion, including NRA Bullseye Pistol Competition to Cowboy and Western Action shooting.

The Pulitzer Prize winning author James Michener expressed it well:

There are lifelong rewarding values and satisfaction from participating in competitive activities. In James A. Michener's "Sports in America", the author analytically dissects modern sport and quickly rejects the spectator variety as an ongoing advantage to anyone. He calls individualistic activities such as golf and shooting, "life-long sports" and says that a person should choose a lifelong program that will enhance his general well being. Michener states that competition is an "extension of our very nature." The NRA Conventional Outdoor Pistol competitive shooter is participating in one of the three most difficult individual disciplined sports games in the world. The other two, are worldwide Professional Golf and International Trap. It takes a lot of "guts" to participate fully in these activities. Practice and preparation, travel and its side effects, extreme weather, , monetary cost, physical and family sacrifice all take their toll, but these are the lot of the golfer or shooter who travels the golf, international trap, or pistol "circuit." Nonetheless, the satisfaction of winning the "Masters" at Augusta, an Olympic Gold Medal, an NRA National Championship at Camp Perry, or a DCM "Distinguished Pistol" medal is beyond belief! To master any of these sports is self-rewarding.

However, author Michener also claims, "We don't have to compete with or compare ourselves against the best." Creative competition , encourages the human being to be better than he might otherwise have been. He agrees that incentives like moving up in class, the firing of a "Hole in One", 50/50 birds, or Ten "X's" can be as rewarding as going to the winners circle. Therefore, the winning of the Sharpshooter Class at the local monthly 2700 match, the attainment of an NRA Expert Pistol classification, or just shooting a few more X's than usual is also beyond belief! It is the competitive spirit that drives and rewards the person, permeates the balance of his life, and offers him success in his other pursuits.
http://www.bullseyepistol.com/oursport.htm

Which is why I expressed my view that I am tired of hearing the statement "weapons have one purpose - to kill". Obviously you and other people who make this statement have little understanding of either weapons or firearms. Broaden your horizons a bit. Learn about the subject. At least when you post an anti-gun argument it will be based on a little knowledge...not some slogan promoted by a group such as the Brady Campaign.

[Euromutt]

69. Aside from that being incorrect, why does it matter?

In actual fact, firearms have the purpose of propelling a projectile at high speed, one application of which is to inflict potentially lethal physical trauma on animals and humans. But because of this capability, firearms may also be used to threaten or deter, producing effects without needing to be discharged.

But even if the only purpose of firearms were to kill, why is that inherently a bad thing? If the judicious application of lethal force can preserve innocent life at the expense of that of those who would take that innocent life, why is that a bad thing? Would it not have been better if, say, the Akihabara massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre) or the Dendermonde nursery attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack) had been cut short by the knife-wielding murderers being shot before they could rack up the casualty figures they did? Why should the lives of violent criminals be, in effect, accorded higher value than those of their prospective victims?

[eqfan592]

135. Your logic only works at ALL...

...if ONLY harm is done with firearms. If ONLY criminals are armed and guns are ONLY used to do bad things. This is not even close to the case. Guns are used far more to protect people than to kill. You can try to ignore this fact, but it doesn't change it. You place more value on the lives of those harmed than those protected. What right do you have to do such a thing? What moral justification? None.

[DrDan]

139. I have as much right as any owner claiming his gun is for protection

particularly as so many of those guns lead to accidental deaths.

[Jackson1999]

15. Is it worth the cost....

...if that cost is the life of a child whose father was unable to defend him?

[Raskolnik]

23. if ______________ saves but one child's life, then it is worth the cost

More often than not, this is the sign of a bad idea.

[DrDan]

24. well . . . lets just forget about these lives then

best do that rather than consider any restriction of gun ownership . . . gotta have our guns . . .

[Raskolnik]

26. First of all, there are dozens of restrictions on gun ownership already.

One may be disqualified from legal gun ownership for a number of reasons, and rightly so in my opinion. Unless you have a concrete proposal you'd like to make regarding modifying current gun laws, you're not really saying anything at all.

Second, that "won't someone think of the children" line of argument is both lazy and intellectually dishonest. There is always a balance to be struck between personal liberty and safety, and every one of us believes that tradeoffs are necessary to some degree. So don't pretend that you're the only one sensitive enough to consider human beings in this equation.

[DrDan]

27. "pretend" - noooo - no pretence on my side

[Raskolnik]

29. C'mon. Don't act like a caricature.

Despite what your mom told you, you might not be the most sensitive boy in the whole wide world. It is possible that someone may disagree with you about the issue of gun control, yet not be a heartless monster who just can't appreciate how much you care.

[rd_kent]

52. So by that rationale

If warrantless wiretapping saved one child, its worth depriving someone of their 4th amendment rights?

[rrneck]

65. More gun control

could cost lives as well. Altering the availability of firearms has an impact on the disparity of force between aggressors and victims. Making guns more difficult to get will keep somebody from getting a gun who needs one. That's why it's such a thorny issue.

[DrDan]

86. I was picturing this health club shooting with the 1 bad guy with a gun

and 20-25 innocents carrying guns.

The bad guy does his shooting. This prompts an innocent to pull his gun and try to bring the incident to a close. This is observed by others with guns - each trying to figure out who was the bad guy.

What an absolute disaster in the making.

I just find it hard to believe that more gun control will lead to more lives lost.

[SteveM]

137. Have you seen this happen, or are you speculating? (nt)

[DrDan]

138. of course I have seen it happen - multiple times

how many people claiming to need a gun at home for protection from thieves have actually been robbed????? Or seen a robbery . . . . live

[iverglas]

11. "Figured I'd post this before an anti beat me to it:"

Too late, just in case I am an intended member of the class you refer to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x244796#244811

My question is, how could have gun control possibly prevented this? How can you stop someone who has no criminal record, no history of mental illness, from arming himself and going nuts?

Maybe you couldn't.

Does that mean that no other harm caused by assholes with firearms could ever be prevented?


It just goes to show we need to focus on WHY someone would resort to such acts of murder in the first place, not simply try to control the particular tool used to carry them out.

I give up. What's the cure for misogyny? And when are we going to start administering it?

[Jackson1999]

14. THE question

Look back through the threads. After every one of these incidents I ask. "What law do you want to see passed that would have prevented this from happening?" Not one person has ever been able to respond to this. This goes for the Oakland case, Pittsburgh, etc. If use a tragedy to push an agenda that would have had no bearing on that tragedy you are exploiting the issue.

[iverglas]

16. the answer

I've given it repeatedly, and I've never even heard of you.

Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public.

You asked.

Not willing to do that? Require that people who wish to possess firearms obtain a licence to do so, and that any firearm transfer be registered. Do more than just ascertain that an individual has no criminal record and has never been committed for psychiatric care before issuing a licence.

Of course, I'm not really answering your question. I'll answer this one:

"What law do you want to see passed that would have prevented this from happening?"

When you tell me what law could be passed that would prevent, oh, drunk driving.

[Jackson1999]

22. you are right

See, I disagree with your views, but "banning all guns" is at least an honest answer.

But as far as drunk driving is concerned, that would be like me saying we should ban all cars.

[benEzra]

31. Or resurrecting the Volstead Act (n/t).

[iverglas]

32. ah, nothing like a little honesty

See, I disagree with your views, but "banning all guns" is at least an honest answer.

If only you'd decided to exhibit some. Honesty.


But as far as drunk driving is concerned, that would be like me saying we should ban all cars.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a stitch of sense.


I said:

Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public.
Not willing to do that? Require that people who wish to possess firearms obtain a licence to do so, and that any firearm transfer be registered. Do more than just ascertain that an individual has no criminal record and has never been committed for psychiatric care before issuing a licence.

Is this the "that" to which you refer?

Prohibiting handgun possession and requiring that other firearms be registered, and people in possession of them obtain licences, is "like" you saying we should ban all cars?

Looked up what the word "like" means lately?

How about "honesty"?

[E-Mag]

48. maybe just maybe he was refering to this

"I've given it repeatedly, and I've never even heard of you.

Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public."

ban all handguns so this wont happen again.

ban cars to stop drunk driving.


not the other stuff but I am sure you knew that.

[iverglas]

49. and maybe you want to pretend I didn't say what I said

"I've given it repeatedly, and I've never even heard of you.
Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public."
ban all handguns so this wont happen again.
ban cars to stop drunk driving.

Yes, you really can do that, copy and paste a snippet of a post, as if the rest of it didn't exist.

The rest of it went like this:

Of course, I'm not really answering your question. I'll answer this one:
"What law do you want to see passed that would have prevented this from happening?"
When you tell me what law could be passed that would prevent, oh, drunk driving.

No law will prevent drunk driving, short of destroying all the cars. And that isn't a law, it's an act.

No law will prevent shootings, short of destroying all the guns. And that isn't a law, it's an act.

I made it very plain that my answer, "ban all handguns" WAS NOT an answer to the question:
"What law do you want to see passed that would have prevented this from happening?"
because that is just a stupid question.

A particular category of stupid question. A loaded question. Laws do not prevent anything from happening. So a question loaded with the false premise that laws prevent things from happening is a question that cannot be answered and no one should dignify by answering.

I was just being nice.

[rd_kent]

54. Your solution has been tried already.

"Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public.
Not willing to do that? Require that people who wish to possess firearms obtain a licence to do so, and that any firearm transfer be registered. Do more than just ascertain that an individual has no criminal record and has never been committed for psychiatric care before issuing a licence."

Isnt this how it is done up there in Canada? How is that working out?

[iverglas]

57. it's working very well

Ta for asking.

[rl6214]

75. You keep your handgun ban in canada

We'll keep our handguns in the United States.

[RamboLiberal]

78. Your laws didn't prevent 2 shooters similar to Pittsburgh shooter

from their rampages in Montreal.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060913/montreal_shooting_060913/20060913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

[iverglas]

83. quelle surprise

You'll find my references to both the Dawson and Polytechnique shootings right in this thread, I believe. Why not reply to what I already said, instead of pretending you've said something novel and interesting? (Of course, the Polytechnique was before current legislation was enacted, and one of the reasons some of it was.)

You'll also find my explanation that laws don't prevent anything.

Your laws don't prevent drunks from driving and killing people, do they?

Why are you not lobbying to have them repealed? They're obviously useless, and useless law is bad law.

Then you can get to work on all the other criminal laws. They've never stopped anybody from doing anything. Ever tried to defend yourself against robbery, burglary, assault or shoplifting with a law??

[rd_kent]

91. "You'll also find my explanation that laws don't prevent anything." - so why do you advocate

something you admit does not work?

[iverglas]

93. why do you assert that I said something

that I did not say?

[rd_kent]

96. That is a direct quote from your post. n/t

[iverglas]

100. nope

This is a direct quote from my post:

"You'll also find my explanation that laws don't prevent anything."

The false premise contained in your question:

"- so why do you advocate something you admit does not work?"

is just a false statement. I did not "admit" that something "does not work". I said that laws do not do a particular thing -- the straw thing that people like you are fond of asserting they must do or else they are no good.


Do you know of a law that prevents something? If not, why would my statement not just kinda be a tautology. Laws don't keep you dry when it rains, and laws don't prevent you from driving at 180 km/h. How would they prevent someone from getting a gun, or using it to kill someone?

Things can be done to reduce the risks of something happening. A law against speeding, coupled with posting of speed limits, warning signs about the fines for speeding, public information and education campaigns about the dangers of speding, police presence on the roads to suggest that speeders run a high risk of being caught, and consequences of speeding that will give many people pause, will have that effect: they will reduce the risk of people speeding.

A law that prohibits the transfer of a firearm to someone who does not have a firearms licence, and that requires registration of all transfers, coupled with measures that are counterparts of what I described above, will reduce the risk of people illegally transferring firearms.

Ditto for laws requiring safe/secure storage. They won't magically cause all firearms owners to store their firearms safely and securely, but they will provide a disincentive for not doing so and raise awareness of the various negative outcomes of not doing so, which will be incentives for many people to store their firearms safely and securely.

Glad I could be of assistance. Perhaps this will give you pause, and you won't be so eager to make ludicrously false statements in future.

[rd_kent]

102. Nice try...keep dancing

I pulled a direct quote from your post. I dint misconstrue it, twist it, wring it or anything else. You said what you said. Trying to divert the discussion is an attempt to run from the truth.

[iverglas]

106. okey dokey

I'm an evil moron who advocates evil moronic stuff just for the joy of watching you people get apoplectic.

Happy now?

I look forward to being quoted over and over and over.

[rd_kent]

108. Im glad you admit it.

[iverglas]

146. now, here you can see what happens when I do say something

in my own words, speaking for myself:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126546&mesg_id=126560

OP: "I hate guns"
Me: "I don't ..........."


What happens? Nothing. That's what happens.

It is a whole lot more fun to make shit up and pretend I said it.


Oh, and I hope you don't think any of what you're pulling is novel; in that same thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126546&mesg_id=126964

Poor creekers ... and probably half his fellows in that thread ... gone to an early grave ...


No response to my statement elsewhere in that thread, either, regarding "banning guns" in the Canadian context:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126546&mesg_id=126829

Prohibiting everyone from possessing firearms would fall
so far below the constitutional tests as to be laughable;
it would impair the ability of a whole lot of people to make a living,
to the point of eliminating their entire livelihood, just for starters.

Feel free to pretend I never said that, and have not said things to that effect dozens of other times.



html fixed

[rd_kent]

87. Actually its not. Gun crime rates in all major canadian cities is on the rise.

I watch CTV every night. Gun crime deaths are at all time highs in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

[iverglas]

92. now let's have those stats

Please.

[rd_kent]

97. Canadian Gun Crime Fact Sheet for Toronto - Here ya go iver

http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/pdf/factsheet.pdf

[iverglas]

103. would you tell me what I'm supposed to be seeing here?

I'm seeing raw numbers. You made a claim something like "on the rise". Where am I seeing that?

Don't bother giving me links I have already. Substantiate your statement.

Canadian police services reported 8,105 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide in 2006

Now you'll be needing some points of comparison. I'll be looking forward.

Did you cite this one?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080220/statscan_crime_080220/20080220?hub=Canada

Violent gun crime rate stayed stable in 2006

Updated Wed. Feb. 20 2008 9:08 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Violent crime involving firearms has stayed stable for a fourth consecutive year, Statistics Canada reports.

Handguns accounted for about two-thirds of all violent gun crime in 2006, with police services reporting 8,100 victims of such crime, the agency said in its report released Wednesday.

Firearms account for 2.4 per cent of all victims of violence, it said.

Just to help you in your task.


html fixed

[rd_kent]

105. The numbers speak for themselves. n/t

[rd_kent]

98. Gun crime in Metro Vancouver highest per capita in Canada

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?k=19079&id=4b651ab1-e729-44a9-86d3-79a1ddc84689

[iverglas]

109. from the article

He said the Canada Border Services Agency needs to expand the number of officers dedicated to searching for arms. About 90 per cent of guns coming into Canada are from the U.S., he added.

What laws do you suggest Canada should make to address this enormous problem?

[rd_kent]

116. None, none at all.

Just goes to prove the point that criminals will get what need from somewhere. I apologize it has to be from another country that happens to be mine, but its the price you pay for banning something. During prohibition, the US got most of its illegal booze from Canada.

[iverglas]

176. uh, it has to be "highest" somewhere, doesn't it?

From the article you cite:

There were 45.3 violent offences involving guns for every 100,000 people in Metro Vancouver, slightly higher than Toronto at 40.4 but far above the national average of 27.5, says the report, which is based on police-reported data from 2006.

But gun violence in Vancouver was far behind that in Toronto and Montreal when population size wasn’t considered. A total of 1,993 people in Toronto were victims of a violent firearm-related crime in 2006, about one-quarter of the national total. Montreal was second with 1,291 and Vancouver was third with 455.

Essentially, what you're saying is that in a city of 1,000,000, there were 455 "violent offences involving firearms" in 2006.

Can you name a city of 1,000,000 in the US in which there were 455 violent crimes involving firearms in the 2006???

http://www.examiner.com/x-16503-LA-County-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Guns-from-the-United-States-Fuel-Crime-in-Canada-and-Mexico

The rate of gun homicide in Canada is statistically low and falling, yet public perception is that gun crime is rising. When Toronto, a city with 2.8 million people hit 52 gun homicides in 2005, it became "the year of the gun" in spite of the fact that the city had one of the lowest murder rates on the continent for a city of its size. Rates of homicide with guns are 6.7 times higher in the US than in Canada, and the US has 5.1 times Canada's rate per 100,000 of gun robberies.

That's a quick cite of a secondary source, but I know the numbers, and those are accurate.


html fixed

[iverglas]

190. hark

[rd_kent]

99. Gun crime: The bleak facts - Weapons of choice are 9mm, .40 and .45

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/167340

[iverglas]

111. yes, gun crime is on the rise alright

Do you read what you post?

While Toronto police recovered 2,432 firearms as of Dec. 18 last year and shootings had dropped significantly compared to 2005, the new year has ushered in a wave of gun violence, making it clear there's a large stock of illegal guns of all varieties in circulation.

If you're planning to construct a trend out of some other year-over-year figures, I suggest you think again.

The statistics also show that Toronto police are only seizing a small number of the estimated 5,000 firearms reported missing each year across Canada. The task force recorded just 40 stolen firearms recovered as of Dec. 18.

Several major break-ins last year targeted gun owners in the Toronto area.

"A shotgun inside your house makes a beautiful weapon for a gang member," Press said. Dozens of recovered guns couldn't be traced because serial numbers were removed, he added.

Ah, those law-abiding gun owners. No danger to anybody, them.

[rd_kent]

115. Did YOU read what I wrote? 2008 numbers are not out, but CTV reports that

gun crime is at an all time high.

[rd_kent]

104. What say you now?

Given you stats AND stories, nothing to say?

[iverglas]

107. I say I'm waiting for you to substantiate your statement

Gun crime rates in all major canadian cities is on the rise.

and demonstrate what point you are attempting to make.

The firearms registry causes armed robbery? Safe/secure storage laws cause homicide? Anti-smuggling activities cause biker gangs to shoot people whose identity they mistake? Laws requiring firearms licences cause street gangs to shoot schoolchildren?

What? What is your point?

None of those laws reduce any of those risks, and enhance the ability to address them?

Prove that.

[rd_kent]

110. I have proved it

Statistics Canada has not released the 2008 numbers yet. I have to rely on news reports. CTV and GlobalTV both are reporting a rise in violent gun crime, mostly gang related in all major Canadian cities. I have provided links to many of the stories and a simple google search will reveal the hundreds more that have occurred in the last year. The Gun ban in Canada is having little effect on the illegal use of guns and gun crime in your country, period.

[iverglas]

112. "The Gun ban in Canada"

Ah, if only there were one, eh?

Here.

http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/rapidfire/form.html

Try a search for "restricted" in "M5" postal code, which covers part of downtown Toronto.

[rd_kent]

114. Oh for fucks sake. Stop trying to twist my words, its getting old.

handguns have been banned in Canada. Call it what you wish, dance around it all you want, but nothing will change the fact that handguns are very difficult for a private citizen to obtain. Conversely, that policy has done little to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals in Canada. very little.

[iverglas]

120. stop making false statements

handguns have been banned in Canada

Whether you simply have no clue or are intentionally lying makes no difference. The statement is false.

I could get a handgun - no, not tomorrow; in about two months. I have been in touch with a facility in town and the courses required for a firearms licence and restricted firearms licence are offered on Saturdays. I would take the course, pay my fees to the facility and become a member, make my application for the licence, provide the material required, and wait for approval. I would get a licence. With it, I would go and buy a handgun. As many handguns as I wanted. If I bought more than a couple in a short time, I'm sure the registry would flag it and somebody would take a look. I might even get a call, I dunno. I got a call from Visa one day when I'd been shopping on line, something I'd never done before, at 2 a.m.

So here's me, who knows what I'm talking about, telling you that you, who either don't know what you're talking about or do know and say something false anyway, that what you're saying is false.

Call up a gun club in Canada and ask them about it, if you like. Or just find one on line. There are many.

[rd_kent]

124. Not false statements

"Canada, with a population of 31 million, limits possession of handguns to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives."

"The implementation of the Firearms Act has proven to be far more expensive than originally promised to the Canadian electorate. Originally forecast to cost C$2 million, the costs for firearms registry alone has run to nearly C$3 billion (about US $2.5 billion)"

"Most of the provincial governments have opted out of the Firearms Act, leaving all administration and enforcement of licensing to the federal government. Many have also called for the firearms registry to be suspended. "

In 2003 Canada's reported violent crime rate was a whopping 963 per 100,000, a rate of about twice the US rate (475 per 100,000).


The gun laws in Canada are so convoluted that many of the government agencies charged with administering the laws do not understand or are unable to give answers to many issues that arise. While, technically, yes, one can obtain a handgun in Canada, it is so difficult to get it is essentially a ban.

[iverglas]

129. exactly what are you quoting?

OOOOOh! An AUTHORITY!

http://www.panda.com/canadaguns/

Hint: it isn't.

Another hint: those are right-wing lies you've got yourself there.

If you didn't see it, it doesn't exist ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=235208&mesg_id=235215


In 2003 Canada's reported violent crime rate was a whopping 963 per 100,000, a rate of about twice the US rate (475 per 100,000).

Can you actually not recognize a WHOPPING BIG FAT LIE when you see it?? Are you so blinded by right-wing ideology that you think this could POSSIBLY be TRUE?????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=180682&mesg_id=180701

If you didn't see it, it doesn't exist ...

[rd_kent]

132. I will be first to admit that I cannot get accurate, up to date numbers

on the gun crime rate in Canada, so I am finding and posting what I can. Regardless of your or my opinion on the accuracy of those stats, it appears to be evident that severely restricting (I see it as a ban) gun ownership and access to obtaining guns has done little to stem violent gun crime in Canada. Thats the bigger picture here. Couple that with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to arms in THIS country, a ban is NOT the answer and would do little to curb gun crime here either.
I do not want to get wrapped around the axle here, so I am going to stick with my view that banning, restricting or limiting gun ownership in the USA will have little to no impact on gun crime. The stats just do not back it up at all.

[iverglas]

134. okay then

Big fat nothing.

[rd_kent]

136. Its not a big fat nothing. How about you provide some stats

showing where the gun ban in canada has curbed the illegal use if guns in canada. Please.

[iverglas]

142. how about you find a claim by me

that I need to substantiate?

How about you use your mouse and your noggin and ask google what I really have said?

It just isn't that hard.

[rd_kent]

150. You rail against guns in this forum, advocating that guns should be banned.

Everyone who disagrees with you feels that if it did'nt do much in Canada, then it wont do much here either. I just ask that you show how removing guns from the marketplace and not allowing citizens to legally purchase a gun, is going to help stop all of the illegal use of guns in crime? Its not a hard concept to grasp. Show us that it will work or else please stop advocating for it every time a new thread pops up. Please.

[iverglas]

155. you repeat this lie over and over

I have no way of knowing whether you made it up or are repeating something you have heard:

You rail against guns in this forum, advocating that guns should be banned.

I advocate that residents of Canada should be prohibited from possessing handguns, as a general rule.

You can call that "advocating that guns should be banned" if you agree that supporting smoking bans in hospitals is equivalent to "advocating that smoking be banned".

Otherwise, it's just the big lie. Is it your own, or are you innocently reciting someone else's?

I provided you a link to one place (out of years' and years' worth) where I stated clearly that
I DO NOT ADVOCATE BANNING FIREARMS.

You repeat back at me that I advocate banning firearms?

What conclusion should I draw?


And when do you plan to provide the authority I requested for the CLAIM YOU MADE?



typo fixed

[rd_kent]

166. As I bang my head against the table, I say "ok"

I will save your last post, accept it for what it says, that you do not advocate banning guns, and move on. What perplexes me is why you and I or you and several others in the gun forum, are always arguing against each other. I freeley admit that I support gun ownership, unrestricted, and free from gevernmant interference. It would seem that you are on the other side of that argument, and yet you now claim that you are not in favor of banning guns. I dont know where to go from here. I guess I will see you in the next thread, where we will start the cycle all over again.

[iverglas]

168. "I dont know where to go from here."

Well, I can tell you where to start.

And it isn't here:

I freeley admit that I support gun ownership, unrestricted, and free from gevernmant interference. It would seem that you are on the other side of that argument, and yet you now claim that you are not in favor of banning guns.

You would seem to be saying that if I do not adhere to your false dichotomy and adopt one or the other prong of it, there's something fishy about what I say.

I really think it must have occurred to you at some time that there are a couple of options, hell, maybe even a whole lot of options, in between "gun ownership, unrestricted, and free from gevernmant interference" and "banning guns".

Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

[rd_kent]

172. But in your post, #14 of this thread your response to this question

Here is the question : "After every one of these incidents I ask. "What law do you want to see passed that would have prevented this from happening?" Not one person has ever been able to respond to this. This goes for the Oakland case, Pittsburgh, etc. If use a tragedy to push an agenda that would have had no bearing on that tragedy you are exploiting the issue. "Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public."

And your response, post #14 :"the answer

I've given it repeatedly, and I've never even heard of you.

Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public.

You asked."

Sure seems like there is no ambiguity there.



But anyway......

[iverglas]

174. and you go ahead and keep on pretending

that what I REALLY SAID wasn't:


Of course, I'm not really answering your question. I'll answer this one:

"What law do you want to see passed that would have prevented this from happening?"

When you tell me what law could be passed that would prevent, oh, drunk driving.


You can decide you want to look too thick to grasp that if you want.

No laws PREVENT anyone from doing anything.

A prohibition on handgun possession by members of the public -- obviously, if the prohibition were EFFECTIVE, and not just a law -- would REDUCE THE RISK of incidents like these significantly.

[rd_kent]

175. OK, I give up. You win. You are right, we should and should not ban guns. OK, I get it now.

Im finished, iver, sorry. I cannot keep up with you and your logic. I guess I am just too stupid to understand what you are saying, so I give up. You are right and I am wrong.




I am not sure who, but ONE of us is BATSHIT CRAZY!!!!!!!!! I guess it me.......

[raimius]

181. Your own words

Under your post "the answer"

"Prohibit handgun possession by members of the public."

Pretty simple. That's a handgun ban.

[iverglas]

182. you two take your act on some other road, will you?

You aren't actually fooling anyone, because I don't think anyone believes you can be that stupid.

That dishonest, maybe. I'm sure many would believe that, because it would be like looking in a mirror, and how could they disbelieve their own eyes?

[iverglas]

121. and for the rest

Conversely, that policy has done little to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals in Canada. very little.

There's some truth in what you say. The policy of allowing members of the public to possess handguns has resulted in criminals getting handguns -- overwhelmingly, by stealing them.

That's why I don't like the policy. If I want to play with handguns at the local range, they should be stored on those premises. If I want to "collect" handguns, I should be required to store them at some approved facility and not in my home or on my business premises.

But you say "very little", and that is what is simply false.

Do some math, about the number of handguns stolen in Canada and estimates of handguns smuggled into Canada.

And compare the total with the handguns reasonably estimated to be in criminal hands in the US.

"Very little"? As compared to where? Mars?

[rd_kent]

125. From the Toront Star for your reading enjoyment

https://www.ccfaa.com/images/page_uploads/Decline%20in%20violent%20crime.pdf?PHPSESSID=8f5a7f7964a20546407dbb3b9d29288e

[rd_kent]

126. As a percentage o f population, canadian gun crime is as bad as it is in the USA

[iverglas]

130. you seem to have omitted the link

to your authority for that assertion.

I wonder why ...

[rd_kent]

133. Gun crimes among teens on the rise: StatsCan

Another example

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/20/stats-can-guns.html

[iverglas]

148. I seem to have missed the link

to your authority for the assertion for which I requested authority.

[rd_kent]

151. You see only what you want to see. When you can show that banning guns

has worked in candada to reduce gun crime, then we cal discuss more. Utill then, your argument to get rid of guns is dead in the water.

[iverglas]

156. I'll go you one better

When you can show that banning guns has worked in candada to reduce gun crime, then we cal discuss more.

When you can show me that you are capable of putting three words together and saying something true, I'll consider the possibility that you're not a despicable dishonest dittohead.


Utill then, your argument to get rid of guns is dead in the water.

Until then, you ARE a despicable dishonest dittohead.

[rd_kent]

167. We are all entitled to our opinion, even you.

Using the word dishonest to describe me? Pot, meet kettle.

[iverglas]

169. what a bunny

your argument to get rid of guns is dead in the water

is a dishonest characterization of any argument I have ever made in my life.

Big kettle, no pot, here.

[iverglas]

191. I'm still waiting for the link

[spin]

77. Delete, double post.

Modern technology is wonder when it works. A mystery when it doesn't.

[spin]

79. Misogyny may involve religious belief...

The "religions of the book" which are predominating in western society are intrinsically misogynistic.

Very sad.

After all the arguments for subordinating women have been shown to be self-serving lies, what are misogynists left with? They have only one feeble argument that is still deferred to and shown undeserving respect across the world, even by people who should know better: “God told me to. I have to treat women as lesser beings, because it is inscribed in my Holy Book.”

***snip***

Every major religion’s texts were written at a time when women were regarded as little better than talking cattle. Their words and commands reflect this, plainly and bluntly. This book starts with a panoramic sweep across the world, showing – with archetypal cases – how every religion has groups today thumping women down with its Holy Book.
http://nowherethemiddle.blogspot.com/2009/07/directory-of-divine-misogyny.html

One possible exception is the Wiccan faith.

The attractiveness of Wicca may be due to its friendliness towards women, its naturalistic view of sex and its promise of power through magick. It is very popular among women, and it is tempting to say that Wicca is women's revenge for the centuries of misogyny and "femicide" or "gynicide" practiced by established religions such as Christianity. Wicca, like the Celtic religion, allows women full participation in the practice. Women are equals, if not superiors, of men. Women in Celtic mythology are unusual, to say the least. They are intelligent, powerful warriors, ruthless, sexually aggressive, and leaders of nations.
http://www.skepdic.com/wicca.html

I know several people who are involved in the Wiccan faith (both men and women) and I have learned a lot through conversations with them. True, it is a new age religion and may bear little resemblance to the original pagan religions but I find the Wiccan rede Do what you will, so long as it harms none and the law of threefold return whatever you do will come back to you with three times the power. Do good, and it will be revisited upon you with good things, but do evil, and you will suffer there times worse, fascinating and good rules for living a rewarding life.

I don't believe that the original concept of Christianity was misogynistic, but I do believe that the interpretations of church leaders perverted the original concept to what we see today.

I agree, men need to treat women as equals. Unfortunately, it will be a hard fight.

edited for fat fingers

[rd_kent]

89. This is how well the Handgun ban is working in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/23/bc-north-vancouver-shooting.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/23/bc-st-catherines-shooting-vancouver.html

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090405/eastend_shooting_090405/20090405?hub=BritishColumbia

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090712/bc_powwow_shootings_090712

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/killed+targeted+shooting+outside+Vancouver+corner+store/1471213/story.html

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/9012814.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ottawa+dies+Toronto+double+shooting/1858378/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/05/10/etobicoke-shooting.html

C'mon, iverglas, what say you now. Gun crime in Canada is at an all time high. You know, the guns that were made ILLEGAL.

[iverglas]

94. let's have those stats, please

You know, the guns that were made ILLEGAL.

And let's have you admit that your statement is false.

A big problem, duh, is that they are not "illegal". And many of the (very few) handguns being used in crime were in fact stolen from people legally authorized to possess them.

'Cause that and smuggling are the only way to get handguns in Canada, unless you are the odd asshole who manages to meet the criteria and get a permit. Kimveer Gill is one such, and the person who killed a bystander on Yonge Street a year or two ago was another.

[rd_kent]

101. I have given you your stats, what is your reply?

[jeepnstein]

20. The Ulitmate Loser.

The guy can't manage to join society so he decides to go out in a blaze of "glory". I wonder what he thought that all of this was going to get him?

Until we get proper coverage for mental health care in this country, sick folks like this will go about their business self-medicating and spiraling downward.

Monsters are real, and sometimes they live inside people's heads.

[iverglas]

33. not really

I'd say the ultimate losers were the women he killed.

Until we get proper coverage for mental health care in this country, sick folks like this will go about their business self-medicating and spiraling downward.

On what are you basing your diagnosis?

Can I infer that you think anyone who kills anyone is sick?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09217/988669-55.stm

Gov. Ed Rendell called it "another senseless shooting and a tragic shooting. It's a case where someone who clearly shouldn't have had a firearm because of mental problems had a firearm. This guy had severe mental problems. He had a deep abiding hatred of women."

Maybe if misogyny were added to the DSM-IV, we could get a whole lot more people involuntarily committed for treatment ... and prohibited, in the US, from possessing firearms ...

[gorfle]

36. I think it's pretty safe to say...

I think it's pretty safe to say that all of these mass-murder/suicide folks are sick.

They all have a a distinctly common trait: They feel ostracized by society. They feel victimized and abused. And it festers in them for a long time until they finally snap. I think they probably are sick.

Unfortunately, many of these folks don't show up on any mental health radar because they don't go get medical help. So NICS will not screen them. Likewise, I'm not sure that any health care plan will help, either, because I don't know if cost is what is keeping these folks from seeking mental health treatment. This last fellow was an IT employee at a law firm someplace. Surely he had health care? I don't think these people realize they are sick. I think they just feel anger. Tremendous anger. Rage. And finally, they act out on it.

As much as I hate it, I am having second thoughts about having some kind of screening process for individuals buying firearms - some kind of background check beyond simply checking your criminal and mental health history. Many of these killers had left clues about what they were going to do before they did it. This latest gym-shooter had blogged about it. Maybe these people would be weeded out if someone did a background check on them before they bought a firearm.

But then again, I don't see how such a system could ever keep up with the rate of firearm sales in our country. And, as I've said before I don't think lack of firearms will stop these kinds of killers, either. They'll just load their car up with several 5-gallon cans of gasoline and a couple 20-pound propane cylinders and drive it into the side of a building at 90 MPH.

[iverglas]

39. why?

I am always very open to any facts that suggest diminished criminal responsibility.

Abused children abuse. That's important, and it's a relevant consideration in dealing with abusers who were abused.

If someone who murders three people and seriously injures several others, and traumatizes who knows how many for life, can be dismissed as "sick", why not the burglar busting in the back door?

Why can't this guy just be a misogynist creep, and that be the explanation for why no reasonable person wanted anything to do with him?

Maybe he was a misogynist creep because of how mummy and daddy reared him, or because of the society in which he was reared.

It's really quite possible to be a misogynist creep and not kill anyone in one's entire life, though. In fact, there are millions and millions of 'em.


Unfortunately, many of these folks don't show up on any mental health radar because they don't go get medical help. So NICS will not screen them.

That's right. But a licensing system that involved references (and, in the case of people with partners, required acknowledgement that the partner has been informed of the application and information to the partner about how to object), and a registration system that flagged someone buying multiple firearms in a short time, would PROBALBY screen out SOME of them.


They'll just load their car up with several 5-gallon cans of gasoline and a couple 20-pound propane cylinders and drive it into the side of a building at 90 MPH.

But NONE OF THEM DO.

[rd_kent]

56. I agree, Misogyny AND Misandry should be added

Gotta be fair about it, right?

[jeepnstein]

58. Read his blog...

It's quite revealing.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=8258001&page=1

The facts of this case speak for themselves, for those smart enough to listen once in a while.

[iverglas]

60. read my post 37

I linked to the original site of the blog, and have already read it.

His hatred and male arrogance are in evidence. I see no evidence of delusions, alcoholism or addiction ("self-medicating"), etc.

Personality disorders are not "mental illness" for the purposes of criminal law. No one may be compelled to accept treatment for a personality disorder. And a personality disorder may be just what he had.

And at the extreme end, psychopathy and sociopathy, also not "mental illness", may not be treatable, and even they are not grounds for compelling treatment. Nor is depression, or bipolar disorder.

A individual with any of those problems is quite possibly a very bad risk for firearms ownership. But even if diagnosed, they are not grounds for a firearms prohibition in the US. And even if treated, an individual with such a problem may never be a good risk for firearms ownership.

On the other hand, a system that flagged someone registering the purchase of multiple handguns in a short period of time might just have brought this individual to public attention. And a system that required a licence in order to acquire firearms might just have resulted in enough information coming to public attention (e.g. from a referree) that the licence would have been denied in the first instance.

All of the mental health care that could ever result from all of these pious wishes, even if they came true, would not PREVENT such events any more than any any particular form or combination of firearms control measures.

To wish for one and do nothing about the other does not suggest a genuine desire to do what can be done to reduce the risks and numbers of such events.

[jeepnstein]

62. Grind your particular axe..

any old way you wish. Nobody's buying what you're selling because you are way off base. The man had problems that should have been addressed by a mental health professional.

I'm wasting my time with you since you exhibit not one bit of willingness to see anything that interferes with your own personal agenda.

[iverglas]

63. "The man had problems that should have been addressed by a mental health professional"

And I guess you're the one who's gonna make him, big man.

You have a big job ahead of you, if so. Because NOBODY ELSE CAN DO IT.

And people with personality disorders don't generally ... in fact, pretty much never ... seek out "treatment" for them, themselves.

Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people like him await your attentions from sea to shining sea.

As do their potential victims, of course.

[rl6214]

76. "And I guess you're the one who's gonna make him, big man"

Pleasant as always I see.

[iverglas]

84. yeah, read the infinitely respectful and thoughtful post 62

and then read what it was in reply to, and note the, er, disconnect, in both substance and tone.

Someone is desperately in need of your attentions, I think.


62, not 32 ...

[rl6214]

194. OK, let's see

jeepnstein (881 posts) Wed Aug-05-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Grind your particular axe..

Hmmm, let's see, nothing nasty here

any old way you wish. Nobody's buying what you're selling because you are way off base. The man had problems that should have been addressed by a mental health professional.

nothing here either, just stating that in his opinion, you are way off base


I'm wasting my time with you since you exhibit not one bit of willingness to see anything that interferes with your own personal agenda.

nothing snide or nasty here either, just a reference to what is percieved as your personal agenda to have a firearms ban in the US like is in place in canada. No snide or sarcastic comment or name calling here like "big man"

[AtheistCrusader]

143. There's a lot to be done to de-stigmatize mental health issues

and get them health care coverage, certainly.

Working on it.

[iverglas]

64. just a little f'r instance for you

It's amazing how often I know what I'm talking about, doncha think?

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000921.htm

Antisocial personality disorder

Alternative Names
Psychopathic personality; Sociopathic personality; Personality disorder - antisocial

Definition
Antisocial personality disorder is a psychiatric condition in which a person manipulates, exploits, or violates the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal.

I'm not diagnosing, mind, just suggesting possibilities.

Treatment

Antisocial personality disorder is one of the most difficult personality disorders to treat. People with this condition rarely seek treatment on their own. They may only start therapy when required to by a court.

The effectiveness of treatment for antisocial personality disorder is not known.

Huh.

[slackmaster]

30. He had no officially documented history of mental illness, but his blog speaks for itself

Nobody was there to direct him to help that might have been available.

[iverglas]

37. the blog

I read that it was inaccessible, but this seems to be it.

I'm looking for evidence of mental illness ... and I'm seeing a misogynist asshole.


http://georgesodini.com/20090804.htm



If it's inaccessible, I have a full copy.

[gorfle]

41. Read his diary here

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/05/sodini.pdf

Then read this here:

http://www.robertringer.com/bullying.html

It's like he's following a damn recipe.

I'll post specifics when I'm done reading the diary.

Two words: social isolation.

[iverglas]

42. "Two words: social isolation"

And they mean what?

That someone who is a complete asshole has no friends?

Well quelle fucking surprise.

Read his comments about women at the blog link I posted (I will read the ones you posted), and ask yourself what woman would come within a mile of him.

Yeah, I know. Women do actually press flesh with scum like that. Slim pickings, I guess.

He estimated there were 30 million desirable women in the US and none wanted him. Maybe he should have looked for his real soulmate. Someone no one else wanted.

[gorfle]

43. Read the whole thing.

Yes, there is no doubt that this guy is a racist, and no doubt that he hated women.

I've finished reading the whole thing. There is something deeper here than merely being an asshole with no friends.

I will write more later.

[gorfle]

119. On Social Isolation.

OK, I had a busy evening and morning, but now I can devote some time to this subject.

It is possible that this man was simply a woman hater from the get go. But I doubt it. I suspect that instead of being a woman hater, which turned people off and isolated him from society, I suspect he was simply a loner who never fit into society, and over time that turned to rage against the part of society that he longed for companionship with most - women.

How do I know this? Because I could have been this guy.

I'm going to relay some deeply personal experiences of my life. Experiences that give me insight into people like the Columbine shooters, and people like George Sodini.

When I was a kid, I was, they say, a "class clown". I do not remember ever setting out to be one, nor to seek out attention, but that is what my folks say, and I remember in the sixth grade my teacher having a conference with my folks telling them that my teenage years will be difficult because I was such an attention seeker/class clown up to that point. Looking back, I believe that these were simply my abortive attempts at learning how to socialize with other kids. I was an only child, and we always lived out in the country so I did not have much socialization with peers outside of school. I don't know if this has any bearing or not. The bottom line was, I was weird, and smart, and it was not long into middle school when the predictions of my sixth grade teacher came true. From the sixth grade until ninth grade I was picked on unmercifully. I won't bore you with the details, but the point here is that even at that age I had contemplated both suicide and taking my father's guns to school to put an end to the people who tormented me. Of course I never did either, and the reason why was the fear of the consequences always won out. By 9th grade we had moved to a new state, and thus a new school, and I remember making a conscious decision to not speak to anyone so as not to give anyone any excuse to pick on me. My intent was to simply be invisible. And it worked. I had no friends, save a few in my senior year of high school, but I did not learn to socialize at all. I never dated, and felt completely unwanted.

After a brief try at college before the money ran out, I went to work. I'd work out at the gym with a good friend of mine, and I would go throw darts on Friday evenings at the local bar, but I had no clue how to approach women, and I again never dated. I tried hitting on a few women from time to time but with no success. I am positively certain that it was because people can sense lack of confidence a mile away, and it was obvious to any woman that I spoke with that I had absolutely zero confidence or self-esteem no matter how I tried to fake it.

After a couple of years I moved back in with my Mom so that I could live in a smaller town where it would be possible to go to school and work full time without long commutes eating up all my time, as it had before. I was about 23 or so. I had never dated, never had sex, nor even kissed a girl, though I desperately wanted all those things. I became a hermit. My hobbies revolved around computers, and building model kits - both very solitary activities. Though I had a good job, I felt completely worthless as a person and I can remember at this time my goal in life was to pay off my debts so that I could commit suicide without leaving any burdens behind for my family to deal with.

And then, one day, I realized that something had to change if things were going to change. If I were ever going to learn how to socialize and interact with people I was going to have to put myself into those social situations or I was doomed. So I did. I joined a club at school, and made one of my best friends in life there. And then, as luck would have it, I discovered another club full of nerdy, socially-inept people just like me, where, for the first time in my life, I was accepted for who I was. And that, right there, gave me the smallest spark of confidence and self-worth that turned my life from a nose-dive into oblivion into what I have today. At age 27 I had my first love, and lost my virginity. And from there, it was as if a huge burden had been lifted from me. I felt I had worth as a human being, as a man. It was as if finally I had achieved all the social knowledge I was supposed to have learned 10 years before. I felt a part of society, instead of feeling outside of it. I cannot stress here enough how monumental a sea change this was in my life, and how the stress of a decade or more of feeling outside of society bore on me.

So what does this have to do with George Sodini?

Here is what I believe, and the article I pointed you to here http://www.robertringer.com/bullying.html very much confirmed for me things that I had felt for years. In fact when I read Robert Ringer's article I was shocked that someone had had the revelations that he had and was able to write down.

I believe that there are people in this world who are different. And these people are generally ostracized from society because of it. The younger this difference becomes apparent, the more cruel and direct the ostracize is. As adults, weird people are just avoided and shunned. As kids, they become the target of every prank and the butt of every joke.

The pain of this ostracization builds over time. It festers, and it breeds a vast, deep sense of worthlessness. And here is the key point: I believe that eventually people break under this pressure, and it either goes two ways: Either they internalize their perceived failings and blame themselves, or they externalize their perceived failings and blame those around them. Some people live out their entire lives carrying these scars, their pain dully burning away inside themselves as they trudge through their lives. But some simply break under the strain. And those who internalized their feelings blame themselves and commit suicide. And those who externalized their feelings blame others and they commit murder before committing suicide.

I was very nearly the former. It was only a last-ditch act of desperation to seek out friends and lucking into a place where I felt comfortable that saved me. But if that had not happened, I have no doubt that I would not be here today.

Now I'll look at Sodini's diary and point out the things that waved huge red flags to me that I could identify with.

"No girlfriend since 1984, last Christmas with (deleted)was in 1983. Who knows why. I am not ugly or too weird. No sex since July 1990 either (I was 29). No (deleted). Over eighteen years ago. And did it maybe only 50-75 times in my life. Getting to think that a woman now would just, uh, get in the way of things. "Isolated."

"Isolated." Nearly 20 years of sexual frustration.

"I know nothing will change, no matter how hard I try or what goals I set."

Hopelessness.

"A man needs a woman for confidence. He gets a boost on the job, career, with other men, and everwhere else when he knows inside he has someone to spend the night with and who is also a friend. This type of life I see is a closed world with me specifically and totally excluded."

Here is a man who desperately longs for a loving relationship with a woman but feels that the world is closed to him and he feels totally excluded from it.

"Flying solo for many years is a destroyer."

Here is someone who realizes that he is crumbling under the weight of his social isolation.

"Looking back over everything, what bothers me most is the inability to work towards whatever change I choose."

Again, hopelessness.

Quoting someone he heard on the radio:

"If you know the past 40 years were crappy, why live another 30 crappy years then die?

Again, hopelessness.

Here is some very insightful stuff:

"So I just learned that now at 48. Maybe 30 years later than I would have liked. My dad never (not once) talked to me or asked about my life's details and tell me what he knew ... Brother was actually counter-productive and would try to embarase (sic) me or discourage my efferts (sic) when persuing (sic) things, esp girls early on (teen years). Useless bully. Result is I am learning basics by trial and error in my 40s, followed by discuragement (sic). Seems odd, but that's true."

This, I believe, is a crucial passage. This guy, like me, missed out on his formative years of social development, and he knows it. He realizes that he is 48 years old and does not know how to socialize with people, specifically women, with whom he is desperate for a relationship.

I was exactly the same way, and I came to believe that people, and women in particular, were keenly aware of my social deficiency. I remember once watching the movie "Risky Business" with Tom Cruise. There was a line, after Tom's character had turned his parent's house into a brothel, from one of Tom's friends. He said something to the effect that what he got from the experience was knowledge. And that knowledge was essential to making it with women because they could tell men who did not have it. My life experience has led me to believe this is absolutely true. A man with no sense of self-worth, no confidence, is spotted a mile away. And this in turn leads to a vicious circle of rejection, which leads to deeper senses of worthlessness and no confidence. This is exactly what Sodini describes above.

"Young women were brutal when I was younger now they aren't as much, probably because they see me just as another old man."

Remember what I said about social ostricization? Adults, who have social graces, simply ignore weird people. Kids, however, aren't so kind.

"I see twenty something couples everywhere. I see a twenty something guy with a nice twentyish young women (sic). I think those years slipped right by for me. Why should I continue another 20+ years alone ... This is the Auschwitz Syndrome, to be in serious pain so long one thinks it is normal."

Here again we see that Sodini realizes that he missed the boat on learning proper social skills when he was younger, and it pains him greatly.

"Women just don't like me. there are 30 million desirable women in the US (my estimate) and I cannot find one. not one of them finds me attractive. I am looking at The List I made from my May 4th idea. I forgot about that for several days. That tells me where I stand. These problems have gotten worse over a 30 year period. I need to expect nothing from me or other people. All through the years I thought we had the ability to change ourselves - I guess that is incorrect. Looking at The List makes me realize how TOTALLY ALONE, a deeper word is ISOLATED, I am from all else.

I no longer have any expectations of myself. I have no options because I cannot work toward and achieve even the smallest goals."

More insight that reinforces the impression that Sodini felt totally alone, and completely unattractive to anyone. Absolutely zero self-worth.

"I was invited to a picnic, and I went. An older woman there, out of the blue, asked if I liked high school. Then quickly asked if I was picked on very much. Intersting (sic) why she would ask that. But thanks, I already know what the problem is, but a solution eludes me."

"Another lonely Friday night, I'm done. This is too much"

"Actually, I haven't had sex since I was 29 years old, 19 years ago. That's true."

He is very upset about his lack of sex.

"i was reading several posts on different forums and it seems many teenage girls have sex frequently. One 16 year old does it usually three times a day with her boyfriend. So,err, after a month of that, this little hoe has had more sex than ME in my LIFE, and I am 48. One more reason. Thanks for nada, (deleted)! Bye."

Clearly Sodini is now highly resentful towards women who not only succeeded in having normal social relationships as a teenager, but who seem to so easy have what he has desperately wanted for 19 years.

There's more, but I think I've shown enough. Feel free to read his diary through on your own, and then compare it to what I've said and what Robert Ringer says about bullying.

Bullying leaves deep, serious emotional scars on people, and can derail them for life, with dire consequences. When they endure years of being a social outcast they come to believe that there truly is something wrong with them and that they are, in fact, worthless. It's an enormous strain to live under, and not everyone makes it. When they break, watch out.

Well, I've rambled enough here. I guess my point here is that bullying is a huge, huge problem, far greater a problem than access to firearms will ever be. Social Ostracization is a serious problem that deserves a lot more attention than it gets. When people like Cho, or Sodini, or Wong are so unable to fit in with society that they feel outside of it, the effects are devastating when they externalize years of pent-up frustration. And for every one who goes on a violent shooting rampage, how many never make the news at all, since they internalized their frustrations and just hung themselves in the bathroom?

[iverglas]

122. sticking in "my recent posts" for later - nt

[burrfoot]

123. ...

Glad you're still with us, gofle. Cheers :toast:

[spin]

127. Very insightful, great post (n/t)

[gorfle]

144. Sodini videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jysj6bqCvLg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCIT6h03fKA

Notice how he keeps commenting on the value of his possessions, and how nice and clean they are, how they match, etc.

This is a compensation for an absolute feeling of personal worthlessness. His sole hope is that someone will find worth in what he owns.

I felt the same way for a long time. I did things that I consider ridiculous today. On more than one occasion I asked a girl out by sending her a dozen roses. I figured if there was nothing noticeable about myself perhaps the things that I could buy her would be noticed. Of course it was just a huge pressure squeeze on the poor girl and totally inappropriate and awkward.

[iverglas]

178. "when I'm 10 to 20 years older than she is"???

That isn't the sign of a person compensating for "an absolute feeling of personal worthlessness".

That is the sign of a massive narcissist with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

I have a dear friend who frequents gyms and pools - he's a type II diabetic and is devoted to controlling it by diet and exercise. He's also gorgeous, smart, funny, all the good stuff.

When he was 45 or so he was constantly being hit at gyms on by women young enough to be his daughter (his daughter is an animal scientist of some sort). He just could not figure it out. He didn't want to hang out with 25-yr-olds. He wanted to meet a woman with whom he shared life and experience.

He did. A lawyer, about his age. They got married.

No, not me. ;) He's the one person I've ever known who owns a handgun. And he votes for bad parties.


The comment for the video refers to Sodini's hatred of and alienation from women. That's accurate.

One viewer asks why he didn't hire a prostitute. I've wondered myself. It would fit with the narcissism and sense of entitlement, and of course misogyny. He may just have felt too entitled. Or not been willing to take the risk that even a prostitute wouldn't give him the ego feeding he needed.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Good post, but please stop referring to the two at Columbine.

Not to say they never had any problems at all, but 'bullying' by classmates had nothing to do with it. Harris was a sociopath, and Klebold a manic-depressive. Not random insults, clinical diagnosis.

On the other examples, Cho, Wong, etc, I cannot speak to, but the FBI has released plenty of details on the Columbine shootings, including previous criminal history, and mental health evaluations that came out of breaking into someone's van, for instance.

Those two were broken. Classmate bullying didn't do it. (Possible parentage had something to do with it, I don't know)

[gorfle]

147. I had heard that.

I have read more recent things that said that the Columbine shooters were not bullied, as had originally been reported.

It's possible it's true. I have not read all the recent things about them. I remain somewhat skeptical.

Without a doubt, based on their own videos and writings, Cho and Wong both harbored serious feelings of alienation, isolation, and resentment.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. Yeah, those two seem to be better examples of

social outcast complications. At least what I have read so far. Then again, there's always that panicked 'why' question, where people loot to pin it on just one thing that can be banned or changed, like Doom, or Bullying... I think it comes from our inherent need to understand things, even though what we are trying to understand may have no rhyme or reason.

Here's a pretty good Slate article on the Columbine shooting. I know Slate isn't the best source sometimes, but vOv...

http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/

[chrisa]

163. What an analysis.

The idiots in the media often just pass shooters like Soudini off as "evil," like this is some kind of Biblical event where Satan leaped out of the earth and started killing people. I'm not trying to be humorous. Nobody analyzes the slow building up of passive-aggressives like Soudini, and how they one day explode into violence. Same with Cho. Both were determined to kill what they saw as "the aggressors" that had, in their opinion, ruined their lives. Cho saw the kids around him as his enemies, and Soudini saw women as his enemies. Of course, these thoughts are pretty irrational, but they were both mentally ill, possibly from deep emotional scars from their past. Their suicide is an escape from their hopelessness, and they want to punish their percieved enemies around them for 'ruining their lives.' The women in that exercise place were a representation, in Soudini's mind, of all of the women in his life who had rejected him.

If you examined pedophiles, serial killers, rapists, or people who supposedly 'randomly' snap and do horrible things, you would probably find that events in their past emotionally scarred them. Personality forms at the young ages, so one would only imagine attacking a kid's self-esteem, and murdering their expression of creativity could only hurt them in the future.

I could go all day about how this culture murders any attempts to be creative or think outside the box. Most of it is done at a young age. However, I would probably use all of DU's banwidth, and would go on for days.

[gorfle]

170. Shooter attended self-help meetings on dating.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/07/pennsylvania.gym.shooting/index.html

"By the end of the workshops, Micklow said "a lot of the guys had loosened up," but "George was pretty much just as nervous.""

" Online diaries left by Sodini reveal a man tormented by his inability to find a girlfriend to the point of rage.

"Girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE," he wrote earlier this year. "There is something BLATANTLY wrong with me that NO goddam person will tell me what it is.""

[iverglas]

173. so here's the big question

Did you kill anyone?

Did you ever plan to kill anyone, fantasize about killing someone, focus enough hatred on anyone or any group of people that you wanted to kill them?


I suspect that instead of being a woman hater, which turned people off and isolated him from society, I suspect he was simply a loner who never fit into society, and over time that turned to rage against the part of society that he longed for companionship with most - women.

I think he was a woman hater.

I don't think he longed for companionship. I think he thought he was ENTITLED to sexual contact with women, and women were duty bound to provide it for him.


Depression is in my genes, both sides, and I didn't escape it. Mind, my teenaged suicide fantasies were more existential than depressed, although it's a rare teenager who doesn't have depressive tendencies.

I was a total social misfit as a kid. Not cute, not interested in my cohort's stuff, their sports or their music or their fashions, just your basic kid genius who couldn't relate. Even in the kid genius class, a misfit, and actually to even worse effect: it was a strange coincidence in my city of 100,000 or so that the 60 brainest kids (chosen basically by IQ testing) came almost entirely from the north end and wealthy professional families. I came from a lower-middle/upper-working class east end family. About five of us did, and we were reminded of it in every little way. Being not cute, not athletic, female and from the east end was three years of hell.

Years later, a teacher fawned over me at a reunion I went to so I could see how the rich kids turned out -- praising the good works I had done in my profession and saying she'd always known I had the most potential of them all. And yet what I remember is her correcting my working-class pronunciation in front of the class when I was 10: "vase" is supposed to be pronounced "vahse", doncha know. I was in touch with one of the other five east-enders a couple of years ago after decades of no contact; she has a doctoral degree from Cornell, and works with abused women. And her bitterness and sadness at that elementary school experience sounded to be as open a wound now as it was then. Outsiders, no matter where you are. A whole lot of us, of people, really are, you know?

I got politics, and got over it: rich people don't impress me anymore; I'm richer than many of them now, and they make me laugh. I also got out -- abandoned high school and went to another city at 16 for university, reinvented myself. Part of it was easy; at 16, I suddenly became very seriously cute. And at the same time became an atheist, a socialist, a feminist, and then a philosophy student, and started organizing campus political stuff. I never thought of anything I did as fitting in or being normal or getting accepted. I did what I wanted to do and what I thought should be done.

But the funny thing is, I still had no sense of myself. I gave up on acid after not too long because I started having those experiences people describe when they come back from the dead: you find yourself looking out at the world from a tunnel, and when you try to see what's in the tunnel, there's nothing there. When you're dying, that's your brain - your personality - shutting down. When you're on acid, it's you looking at Jim and Jim and Rick, and saying huh, that's Jim and Jim and Rick, and they're acting just like Jim and Jim and Rick; what am I, and how am I supposed to act? Uh ... no idea; nothing. Three hours of catatonic smiling ensue ... Again, years later, I learned that others in my gang envied me for having such a strong personality and being so sure of myself. News to me.

I didn't feel like having sex until I was in 2nd year university - late, compared to my peers, but my peers were my classmates and housemates who were 21 and 22 and I was 18. So when I felt like it, I did. Yes, we women have the advantage there, I suppose. Although if it was that easy for me, it was presumably that easy for the men involved. It taking two, and all.

The current co-vivant was in a rock band when I was doing all that. He didn't have sex til he was 21, and then not all that much. For pity's sake, does anyone really believe that everybody else is having all the sex we somehow get the impression they're having?? (Although he apparently did do it on the subway once. He's got the depression genes and the depression too; and he had seriously problematic parents. He's never had any desire to kill anybody, as far as I know.)


Being depressed and blaming other people for one's problems are not necessary corollaries, and in fact tend to be quite different things. And depression involves an absence of self-worth, not a feeling of entitlement. Blaming others and feeling entitled are much more classic indications of a personality disorder. Maybe in a person who isn't smart enough to get what they want by manipulating, an unsuccessful narcissist, depression follows.


Hmm. I see you say you did consider taking guns to school and putting an end to it all. Well, it's not that it can't happen. I think it's less likely in a middle-aged person, for depression to launch them into months of hateful thoughts and words, and plotting to kill -- and in this case, as in the case of Marc Lépine at the Montreal Polytechnique, for instance, to kill individuals who themselves have nothing to do with the person's problem, who merely represent the group he sees as the cause of his problems. Women.

Men kill women. Men harm women. They kill their intimate partners, they rape strangers, and some, like Lépine and Sodini, kill groups of strangers, because they are women.

This isn't a sign of depression. Depression doesn't cause misogyny. A personality that accepts no responsibility, that feels entitled, is a personality ripe for misogyny when it goes looking for an object of its need to blame and punish. Women are vulnerable targets. Women are already objectified in our society and the mind of the person in question. He is entitled to sex -- women are for sex. He can't get any. It's women's fault. Because nothing is his fault. Taking responsibility isn't an option, for someone like this. He gets miserable enough, what he needs is vengeance.

And there just is not sufficient evidence in this case that his actions stemmed from anything but his supreme narcissism and feelings of entitlement.

He doesn't talk about women he likes and can't succeed with, or about what a relationship would bring him that he's missing. He talks about wanting sex, and vilifies women who have sex with other men, and women in general.


When they endure years of being a social outcast they come to believe that there truly is something wrong with them and that they are, in fact, worthless.

It really is possible that they are just horrible people, and that's why nobody wants to be around them.


Aha! I just googled the term I coined up there, "unsuccessful narcissist". First up:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article2439812.ece

In therapy, Young tries to engage “the lonely shamed child” that he sees as the source of the pain for an individual with NPD. All of which is difficult to achieve, because even if a person agrees to treatment, Young points out dryly, he may walk out unless the therapist keeps telling him he’s simply the best; ordinary won’t do.

“A lot of people only come because they’ve been sent by desperate partners or bosses. Successful narcissists have something extra that means people tolerate their bad behaviour. The most dangerous is the unsuccessful narcissist. He doesn’t have money or power or charm, so he’s fired a lot of the time. He drives more and more people away, until he ends up alone and a very bleak person.”

In treatment, people diagnosed with NPD are divided into two groups. In one are “pure” or thick-skinned narcissists. They have often been extremely spoilt and indulged and given no boundaries as children. In the second group are thin-skinned narcissists, such as Vaknin, who have grown up feeling unloved and unlovable. Young says the former are almost impossible to help; the latter may respond to therapy. “If there’s no change in a year, the chances of success are low. The person with NPD will constantly try to prove he is superior to the therapist; that the professional knows nothing.”

I think that's exactly what I've been getting at. ;)

[gorfle]

177. cannot respond til sunday n/t.

.

[iverglas]

179. and it only took me one day. ;) nt

[gorfle]

183. Just saw this...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/07/gym.shooting.psychology/index.html

" "What distinguishes the mass murderer who takes his own life afterwards from the person who just commits suicide is the externalization of blame," said James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University professor of criminal justice and author of six books on mass murder.

"If you blame yourself for your problems, then maybe you direct your violence inwardly. If you blame other people for your failures, like Sodini did, you go after those people.""

This exactly lines up with what I hypothesized earlier.

[iverglas]

184. well yes

"If you blame yourself for your problems, then maybe you direct your violence inwardly. If you blame other people for your failures, like Sodini did, you go after those people."

But it lines up perfectly with what I said: an unsuccessful narcissist, not a depressed person.

[gorfle]

187. I have to read more about that.

But it lines up perfectly with what I said: an unsuccessful narcissist, not a depressed person.

I have to read more about that to know what that is.

[iverglas]

188. the key bit from my opus

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article2439812.ece

In therapy, Young tries to engage “the lonely shamed child” that he sees as the source of the pain for an individual with NPD <narcissistic personality disorder>. All of which is difficult to achieve, because even if a person agrees to treatment, Young points out dryly, he may walk out unless the therapist keeps telling him he’s simply the best; ordinary won’t do.

“A lot of people only come because they’ve been sent by desperate partners or bosses. Successful narcissists have something extra that means people tolerate their bad behaviour. The most dangerous is the unsuccessful narcissist. He doesn’t have money or power or charm, so he’s fired a lot of the time. He drives more and more people away, until he ends up alone and a very bleak person.”

In treatment, people diagnosed with NPD are divided into two groups. In one are “pure” or thick-skinned narcissists. They have often been extremely spoilt and indulged and given no boundaries as children. In the second group are thin-skinned narcissists, such as Vaknin, who have grown up feeling unloved and unlovable. Young says the former are almost impossible to help; the latter may respond to therapy. “If there’s no change in a year, the chances of success are low. The person with NPD will constantly try to prove he is superior to the therapist; that the professional knows nothing.”

[gorfle]

185. Also this.

From the same article:

" "He had difficult and unhappy and unsuccessful relationships with everybody," Fox said. "What he was never able to do was to see that perhaps the problem was him. Maybe there's a reason why everybody rejects him, no one wants to be close to him. Maybe it's something about his own personality.

"But mass murderers don't look at things that way. If they saw themselves as being the culprit, perhaps they would just commit suicide. But no. Everyone else is to blame." "

But this is clearly incorrect. Sodini most certainly DID think something was wrong with himself - "blatantly" wrong, as he put it in his own diary. And he attended a self-help session trying to fix what was wrong with him.

No, I think Sodini indicated quite clearly that he knew he was a social misfit. In the end, sadly, he externalized his rage at women, whom he saw as the source of his frustration.

[iverglas]

186. compare Marc Lépine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

bit of a crap translation, but it does:

Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex.

Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos.

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams.

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men.

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli.

Sorry for this too brief letter.

Marc Lépine

(The letter is followed by the list of nineteen names, with a note at the bottom:)

Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.

-- even down to the false start.

[burrfoot]

72. This guy is

just fucking sad. His blog is disgusting, pathetic, and just all around rat shit crazy.
I mean, he's horrible, he's a monster, he's a racist misogynistic fuck; but his story is fucking sad. This guy (in my own humble opinion, only) screams mental illness. He's not a psychopath, or a sociopath, or he wouldn't have "chickened out", because he'd never be afraid of doing it, because he wouldn't know it was wrong. In the diagnosis lottery, I'd go with major depression. Features of a very deep-seeded insecurity abound as well. So he's got a distorted view of reality that he's carried around with him for fucking decades, and (in laymen's terms) his brain is broken. Given what he'd become, and what he did, I'm glad that he's no longer with us.
I'm also sorry that his tragedy of a life ended by bringing tragedy to the lives of others. What a fucking mess.

Iverglas, this isn't directed at you; I just picked what seemed like a post somewhere near the things I was thinking about this guy so that this made it into a relevant area of the thread.

FWIW, I don't believe that any of the preceding is an excuse for what he did. Nor will whatever explanations those smarter and more qualified than I come up with be. I just think it's interesting and perhaps informative to look at what makes these sad sorry fucking monsters do what they do.

:shrug:

[Endangered Specie]

53. What I can't believe is how no one noticed those blog postings...

and didn't report them to anyone. The media needs to stop blazing his image and name all over the screen, that why he did it, to get attention, something he could not get in life. The media should just say "some loser shitbird killed 3 people and then shot himself". No pictures or name.

[iverglas]

59. google Kimveer Gill

His blog. (Not up anymore, but many vestigial traces around.) Lots of lovely pics. Just a young fellow playing with his guns in mummy and daddy's basement. No cause for alarm there either.

Next thing you know, bingo. One woman dead, several other injured, including two with head injuries they almost didn't make it back from.

Part of the problem wtih the Canadian approach is that if the individual isn't cohabiting with anyone, there's no one who has to be informed of the licence application ... and these particular specimens are people not likely cohabiting with anyone ...


It's actually rather important that his reason for doing it - his stated reason, and obviously a real one to some considerable extent - was his hatred of women. Hatred of women is pervasive in our societies, and the more extreme expressions of it are instructive.

[slackmaster]

67. IMO he was such an asshole nobody even read his messed up blog

How fucked up is that?

[montanto]

40. Obviously gun control did not prevent it.

There is already gun control in effect. Background checks, waiting periods, etc. A person who, as you say, has no criminal record and no history of mental illness is allowed, under the constitution, to own firearms. Gun control cannot possibly be said to attempt to prevent a sane person from going crazy. Are you trying to equate "gun control" with banning firearms? If so, that's a different story all together, as "ban" is not at all the same as "control."

[Artie Bucco]

73. I highly recommend

reading Mark Ames's book Going Postal.

http://exiledonline.com/revenge-of-the-nerd-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-rampage-killer-who-attacked-a-pittsburgh-aerobics-class/

[proteus_lives]

80. Of course people will blame the guns.

That's the coward's way out and sadly the one societies often choose.

Why tackle the tough problems like mental health when you something ban an object? Why face the scary issue of human behavior when you can blame and fetishize a tool into something "bad."

A psycho kills some people, sad fact of the human race. But don't worry, once we ban guns, we'll have a utopia where everyone gets a pony.

[iverglas]

85. of course someone will come along and claim that someone blames the guns

No one ever does, since to do so would essentially be to demonstrate that one has a delusional illness that causes one to ascribe intent to inanimate objects, but that never stops someone from claiming that someone does.

[Katya Mullethov]

88. What a verbal evisceration

not

[iverglas]

90. ah

but did it penetrate the chest cavity? That's what counts, I gather.

[Katya Mullethov]

193. Sparsely a peritoneal prick

That got me thinking , maybe rubber knives should have those orange tips on em too .

[Tim01]

95. And what if someone drinks then kills someone with a car? Acceptable.

The truth is that the same people who are upset about a guy killing some innocents with a gun, are not upset about a lot MORE innocent deaths from alcohol. So the upset people are not really upset about the dead innocents, they are upset about the "mean scary, evil" gun. The fact that alcohol kills at least twice as many people proves it.

Mental health checks for the purchase of alcohol? Nah
A license to buy alcohol? Nah
Classes on alcohol safety? Nah
Background checks to buy alcohol? Nah
Lock up the alcohol away from children? Nah

[iverglas]

113. That's "the truth"? I don't think so.

The truth is that the same people who are upset about a guy killing some innocents with a gun, are not upset about a lot MORE innocent deaths from alcohol.

I called police once about some people my neighbour and I observed getting out of cars in front of my house, one of whom appeared to be carrying a firearm concealed in a green garbage bag. (We got a distinctly tepid response from police.)

That same year, I called police about a drunk drinking beer from his trunk in front of my house, and then driving off. I stayed on the phone with 911 reporting where I saw him parking and driving, and eventually the police caught him, he blew 0.2, and I attended court twice for adjournments but assume he eventually pleaded out.

So the upset people are not really upset about the dead innocents, they are upset about the "mean scary, evil" gun.

So that's a plain old big fat false statement.

[Tim01]

117. This all happened in a foreign country didn't it? nt

[iverglas]

118. nice weather we're having today

if it doesn't rain.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

152. First thing that came into my mind...

[Tim01]

153. What are you doing with a picture of my mom? nt

[iverglas]

157. misogyny in the DU guns forum?

Never.

It's about as rare as lies.

[X_Digger]

160. US 70's TV reference..

Gladys Kravitz from 'Bewitched', the ultimate nosy neighbor.

[iverglas]

164. no shit

"the ultimate nosy neighbor"

And that isn't a misogynist stereotype there. Never.

Yes, a woman who lives on a street where there are many little children and calls the cops when there is a drunk driving around those streets - drinking on the street, you noticed? blew point two, you noticed? - is a nosy neighbour. Because she's a woman! Women aren't good neighbours or responsible "citizens". They're nosy.

But of course we can't admit that what was done was to blow the allegation to which that was a response out of the water, can we?

Two instances in which I called the cops about suspicious activity on my street.

One was when five cars pulled up together, took all the parking spaces on the block, and disgorged a total of over a dozen young men, all going to an address on a block around the corner, one of whom was obviously carrying a firearm to which he did not want to draw attention.

One was when an extremely intoxicated man who had been drinking outside his vehicle while arguing with a prostitute got into the vehicle and drove off after being warned that police would be called if he did.

Demonstrating nothing but the normal conduct of a normal human being, and smashing the stupid claim to which it replied to bits.

The point everyone so transparently got.

[JonQ]

128. We should ban not having sex

make it mandatory in fact.

That would make as much sense, and have as much effect on these isolated cases, as a gun ban.

[jeepnstein]

131. Bad idea...

I knew a guy who shot someone because his wife was having sex. Of course she was having it with the victim every day when the shooter was away at work.

He thought he made a really good move until I asked him how many guys was his soon-to-be-ex-wife was going to have while he was doing 15 to Life for murder.