Adam Lanza Destroyed His Computer Before Rampage

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Here's some breaking news I saw MSNBC this morning that I haven't seen reported anywhere in the print media yet. NBC reporter Pete Williams reported on Chuck Todd's The Daily Rundown that (police) 'had been hopeful that they could extract some information from the computer at (Lanza's) home. He was very into computers. Before he left his mother's house on the morning that he shot his mother while she was sleeping, he damaged extensively his computer. He took the hard drive out, pulled the disk out, and did a lot of damage to it,' said Williams. 'It's not clear that (police) are going to be able to extract any information or not.' It has previously been reported that Lanza left no online footprint. Police had been eager to examine Lanza's computer in hopes of determining a motive in his killings or finding records of purchases of firearms and ammunition. 'If he visited certain websites, they are going to glean whatever information they can from that and see what it means,' said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly. 'Does he have friends he communicates with online? Was there a fight with somebody?'"

Comments

it tells you one thing, at least

[X0563511]

Premeditated. This wasn't an impulsive act.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[CanHasDIY]

Premeditated. This wasn't an impulsive act.

Full body kevlar (as reported by the media, anyway, though I have my doubts) isn't something people put on as an impulse, either.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[godrik]

I heard a psychologist on NPR last week saying that most massive shooting are long time premeditated actions. Almost no shooter just goes crazy take a gun and shoot everybody. They all spend weeks at it.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the motive of the police; the more they know about his mind(they obviously aren't doing this to try to catch him or his accomplices) the more they are going to go after anyone else with the same symptoms (this can be a good and bad thing). Expect a lot to come from this about how wrong/dangerous it is to be an "off the grid" loner.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[cayenne8]

Full body kevlar (as reported by the media, anyway, though I have my doubts) isn't something people put on as an impulse, either.

Speak for yourself...

Some of us like to think that S.W.A.T. is a fashion statement, especially if you accessorize.

Talk about sexy on the catwalk..sporting kevlar and flashbangs!!!

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[YodasEvilTwin]

Yeah, you'd think you'd have to work up to that sort of thing. It's too complex an action for it to just come out of someone at random; it's the result of long-term turmoil and a damaged pysche.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Jeng]

So prepare for "Voices from the Hellmouth Part 2"

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[alienzed]

I take it you don't live in New York...

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[operagost]

Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Talderas]

He didn't purchase any of the guns he used so a background check wouldn't matter. The purchaser and owner of all the weapons was his mother.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[erotic_pie]

He wasn't the one that purchased the weapons though, he stole them from his mother. All the laws and wait periods in the world wouldn't have stopped him from stealing them from a law abiding citizen.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[NatasRevol]

There are no gun-free cities in America.

There are, however, lots of mentally disturbed people.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jittles]

Which is why mandatory waiting periods are pointless. The wait should be no longer than it takes to make the federally mandated background check-- which apparently somehow needs start taking people's mental health into account. He was only 20, so the known issues he had in school should have been flagged. I imagine the privacy laws in regards to minors may be an issue.

The background checks are supposed to already take your mental health into account. You also have to self-certify that you do not have any mental illnesses (though really, how can anyone really know if they have a mental illness, unless they were diagnosed and told said diagnosis?). In any event, Federal law prevents a 20 year old from buying any weapon with a pistol grip, including the Bushmaster .223 and the two semi-automatic pistols he was reported to have on his person. His mom could buy those items, and transfer them to him after his 18th birthday, but that can also be illegal if she thinks he has a mental illness or if it falls under the rules and regulations barring a straw-man purchase.

In any event, I would not consider the mom to be a responsible gun owner. You should have everything properly secured that you are not presently using. If she was using one of those weapons for self-defense, it should have been on her person. If you leave your guns out, they can be used against you, as she likely learned prior to her death./P.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

I think part of the point here is that if SHE hadn't have been able to buy the guns legally, then there would have been no guns to steal. Yes, criminals will resort to crime to get guns illegally... but that doesn't change the fact that most of the guns USED illegally in this country are just one or two steps from a legal purchase. Outlawing guns doesn't STOP bad guys from getting them, but it sure as hell curtails the process. Q.v. "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels."

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say lots. This is 5(?) major incidents in the past few years... 5 / 300 million == insignificant% of the population.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[DarkOx]

Exactly.

As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day. Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.

Guns are not the problem. The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all. Certainly its true in the 20th century, having people committed was abused. It might be unfair and cruel to lock many of these folks away in psych wards but at least they'd not be out hurting people. Lord knows I don't like health care reform the way it was done but at least some seriously disturbed people might get near to a profession who could possible declare them a threat and get something done about them.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ColdWetDog]

Thinking that owning a couple of guns is a paranoid delusion is a paranoid delusion.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[joh]

Exactly.

As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day.

Not a single one of these twenty people died, though.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[ArsonSmith]

I guess that makes him not mentally disturbed then. otherwise what does that have to do with the parent post?

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[pastafazou]

“Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns. The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals.”

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Obfuscant]

What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia.

They intended no such thing. They gave one example of why the right to be armed is important, but one example is not the complete list.

Do you think all those founders who had just used their arms against the government were really thinking that the only reason people should be allowed to own a gun was so they could be part of a "well regulated militia" -- i.e., part of the government used to suppress the public should THEY ever be so uppity as to oppose a government they found to be oppressive?

What you are arguing is that the same people who just won their freedom from an oppressive, abusive government were now saying that nobody except the government (in the guise of the "well regulated militia") should have weapons. That's ridiculous.

If all gun owners were compelled to be members of a militia with regulation oversight from that militia (responsible gun owners having veto powers over other members, to legally disarm them ...

Well, Mr. President, those people in Tennessee are starting to get riled about those new laws we're forcing on them, you better kick them out of the "militia" and gather up all their weapons...

From the font of all human knowledge:

Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

That's a pretty clear statement about the difference between an armed populace and the militias that would be "well regulated" by the state. "The whole body of the people" is much more than any militia, in your terminology, but it truly was "the whole body of the people" to the founders. Continuing from the same article:

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

You're now arguing that this "paramount right", what the founders thought was "a basic human right", is really intended to be a way of keeping the populace under control because it should be afforded only to those who are "part of the system", and, when the right is most needed, will be part of the problem.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Nadaka]

Its really hard to flash someone with all that velcro on the vest.

You are better off with just a trench coat if you want to flash people.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Ksevio]

So that's saying that guns kill more than all other personal weapons combined! Bombs/fire are a different kind of mass murder.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[tburkhol]

The problem has two parts: mental illness and guns. In China, with no guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 20 people and none of them are dead. In the US, with prolific guns, a mentally ill guy assaults 28 people, and 26 are dead.

The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with mental illness amount to preemptive jailing of a large number of people, the vast majority of whom will never assault anyone. The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with guns amount to taking away tools, the vast majority of which will never be used in anger. Neither of those is right, but the best answer should include aspects of both. Hopefully, some reasonable people can work through the politics and come up with a reasonable solution that addresses not just extremely infrequent mass-violence, but individual shootings which have become so mundane we only hear about them when someone "interesting" is the victim.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[n7ytd]

The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all.

Please don't be so quick to say that his mother "understood things were very wrong but did nothing". What would you have her do? The guy was legally an adult, and she couldn't possibly have kept a 24-hour watch on him.

A very good friend of mine has a son with schizophrenia; people that only he can see tell him what to do. On several occasions, he has traveled over 1,000 miles because imaginary people told him to. Once he was instructed to drive across country to witness the second coming of Christ. Another time he ended up in the middle of Los Angeles and destroyed his cell phone and wallet so that "they" couldn't track him. He was instructed to set his parents' house on fire while they were at work, causing about $100K of damage and forcing the family to move out for about 6 months while it was repaired.

His parents bend over backwards to try and keep an eye on his condition and get him the help that they are able, but the guy's in his mid-twenties; if he doesn't consent to staying in the hospital more than 72 hours, they can't keep him there. He can walk, drive, or ride a bus just like anyone else. Short of keeping him locked in the basement with no shoelaces or metal utensils, what should they do?

My friend once told me that at least when he's in jail (which happens frequently), he can at least sleep knowing where his son is.

Everyone has to sleep sometime.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[painandgreed]

Speak for yourself...

Some of us like to think that S.W.A.T. is a fashion statement, especially if you accessorize.

Talk about sexy on the catwalk..sporting kevlar and flashbangs!!!

Ah, I remember my gothic-industrial club days.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[camperdave]

From the font of all human knowledge:

Noah Webster similarly argued: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Those words were written at a time when there was essentially no difference between a soldier's weapon and a civilian's. Any band of regular US troops now-a-days has far superior firepower available to them than the civilian population. Today's reality is that the only thing preventing a military takeover is the moral qualms of the officers in charge.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[arf_barf]

Friends of mine were in the exact same boat. It's a situation without a solution. If the patient is force medicated, they are unable to function in day to day lives. If they get of the meds, it's just a matter of weeks until they land in trouble. The worst thing is, even here in California, there is virtually no State sponsored support for mentally ill people. Ultimately the solution was to send their son to Europe to spend the rest of his life in a live-in/half-way house mental clinic. It's not cheap, but it's a fraction of the cost of what it was here in the states (for a private institution) and based on his facebook updates, he lives a almost normal life.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[sudnshok]

Firearms account for approximately 18,000 suicides annually in the US and approximately 10,000 homicides.

So, even if we lump in homicides with your suicides AND assume homicides are committed by legal gun owners (which most times they are not): 28,000 is 0.035% of 80 million gun owners in the US, which means it is NOT the "primary purpose of owning a gun". It in fact accounts for a MINISCULE use of firearms.

The primary purposes for owning a gun - BY FAR - NOT EVEN CLOSE - are self defense and sport (including competitive shooting, recreational shooting and hunting).

Also, I suspect that you are misinformed on what an "assault rifle" is which is not your fault since the media spreads so much hysteria and disinformation...

An assault rifle is a marketing term. These rifles function EXACTLY THE SAME as semiautomatic hunting rifles. The only differences are: they look more menacing, have accessory rails and a different grip. You can buy a wooden rifle - not considered an "assault rifle" - which fires the EXACT same caliber bullets, at EXACTLY the same rate with EXACTLY the same capacity.

Also, while you did not mention it here, let me also bring up "high capacity magazines" since a lot of "anti-gun wackos" (as I'll call them) bring these up for argument. The difference between shooting a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about 4 seconds. With just a small amount of practice, anyone can reload in under 2 seconds.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[cold fjord]

Much like the "pertectin' mah fambly" gun nuts who build up arsenals against the mythical home invasion,...

National Crime Victimization Survey - September 2010
Victimization During Household Burglary

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred.

*Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.

*Households residing in single family units and higher density structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[jrumney]

The knee-jerk suggestions for dealing with mental illness amount to preemptive jailing of a large number of people

Part of the problem is that dealing with mental illness has come to mean jailing the mentally ill in the US.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[Boronx]

When you live far enough into the boonies, and many Americans do, you really do need a gun for the same reason you need a stash of food and fuel: you're out there pretty much on your own.

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[dinfinity]

The PDF is more informative:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

Apparently, making less than $7500 a year is pretty dangerous for a household.
Also dangerous: running a household as a single parent, an American Indian, or as someone under the age of 20.

Of course, if you are worried about violence during a burglary, know that your enemies are close to you:
"One or more household members knew the offenders in some manner in 65% of the 266,560 burglaries that took place while someone was present and experienced violence (table 17). Overall, household members knew approximately a third of these offenders as intimates (current or former) (31%), or relatives, well-knowin individuals or household acquaintances (34%)."

Re:it tells you one thing, at least

[doggo]

Yup. Like the detectives who investigated the murder of my last girlfriend, (and I paraphrase) most murders happen to people involved, in some way, in crime. The cops were pissed 'cause she was a "civilian". Violent crime happens mostly to criminals, and the poor.

After that, it's crimes of passion (Yeah, I was the prime suspect for a few hours.)

My girlfriend was innocent, she had a degree from a prestigious university, and was successfully working in her field and building a career. She was 26.

So, numbers are numbers, and there are exceptions. FWIW, no weapons were involved, firearms or otherwise. The Chicago Police caught the murderer a week later. He was convicted 3 years later. He was 17, he'll serve 45 years without parole.

My point is, crime happens. These shootings happen. And they are certainly regrettable. But the news media blow it way out of proportion.

There are too many guns in the U.S., too many arsenals. I'm a gun owner too. But I know we have a problem.

But it's less the guns, than it is the society. There's too much fear in the U.S. That's what the suburban arsenals are all about. Fear. Read a gun or knife forum, these guys talk like they're walking around in a war zone. When in reality, they live in relatively safe communities.

It's not only the fear, it's lack of mental healthcare, and healthcare in general (see the stats on suicide by firearms). It's lack of community. It's lack of social support. It's poverty, unemployment, and anger at not being able to achieve the "American Dream" we all grew up believing in. And the stupid drug laws that put marijuana smokers in hardcore prison for the equivalent of drinking a six-pack. But let's drunk drivers stay on the street.

Rookie

[kc67]

Should have used DBAN.

Re:Rookie

[The MAZZTer]

How do you know he didn't?

He was on Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

His behaviors match that of typical anonymous posters.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do anything this guy did? Maybe he was just a crazy paranoid asshole.

100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides. Dwelling on massacres like Sandy Hook is not really a good idea for many reasons. Most gun homicides are committed with handguns, by people with long records of violent crime, and are done more often than not in heated emotion. But these school massacres fit none of those patterns. They are usually done with rifles, by people that are "odd" and loners but without any record of violent crime, and they are usually meticulously planned. In many ways these make them the hardest violent acts to prevent. We should focus on preventing more on the everyday killings, many of which should be preventable, instead of focusing too much on the black swans where any plausible effort is unlikely to make much difference.

We should try to learn from history: On January 17th, 1989 Patrick Purdy walked into a school yard in Stockton, California, and opened fire on the children playing there, killing five and wounding 29. In the months that followed, legislation was rushed through to outlaw rifles similar in appearance to the one he used. Back in those days, it was common for gun owners to support "common sense" gun control. But they watched gun control advocates, who often claimed that they wanted to restrict handguns and not hunting guns such as rifles and shotguns, use this tragedy to push through bans on rifles and only rifles, and do so on the basis of appearance (shape of the grip, bayonet stud, etc.) rather than functionality. The result had a negligible effect on crime, but resulted in a significant decline in support for gun control in America. There was also a strong political backlash. Many pro-gun-control politicians lost elections, and the urban-rural split between the two major political parties became more pronounced. I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.

Re:100 more will die today

[cayenne8]

I really hope that we do something more sensible this time.

So, what are you going to do?

Unless you outright ban guns....or possibly legislate it so that only single shot weapons are legal, you're not going to change or do anything.

Only law abiding people follow the laws...criminals, by definition, aren't going to abide by them.

And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades, there are just too many guns and ammo to be had out there. If you did this...again, only the law abiding would suffer at the hands of criminals which would still be fully and heavily armed.

I'm sorry, shit happens. Crazy people are out there, and will pop up from time to time, and kill lots of people.

Hell, wasn't there recently a killing spree at a grade school in German or somewhere else in Europe where the killing and damage done was with a knife?

Re:100 more will die today

[dingDaShan]

++++ This is the most sensible thing that I've heard on the situation. Let's mourn the victims, but not let this be a cause to further erode freedom.

Re:100 more will die today

[hondo77]

And banning guns tomorrow, totally...would not affect gun crime in the US for decades, there are just too many guns and ammo to be had out there.

It would be worth the wait.

Re:100 more will die today

[fermion]

To some extent I agree. For instance we waste a huge amount of time and money with USDA and the FSIS inspection and certification of meat. We don't really need it. Yes a few people will get sick and die but all this legislation has been hastily passed over the years in reaction to the fact that a few people can't make responsible choices. I mean if someone gets sick over meat, won't that mean that firm will go out of business and the situation will correct itself. otherwise it is just a matte of safety education. Educate users how to inspect and use the meat they need. Allow local producers to build reputations with consumers.

In broader terms, gun regulation may not in fact be the best reaction. And it is true that real security does not focus on eliminating all risks, but rather minimizing the risks and victims. Which is what i think is at issue here. The security failed catastrophically and a large number of children died. So as rational security people we can ask why.

One thing that is clear is that there are things we can't defend against economically. For instance, I can imagine it would be cool to own a mortar launcher or a tank or a missile. Clearly this is not something that is generally allowed because, like a large capacity clip or a high powered rifle, the only practical purpose of this is to kill large number of people. Under the second amendment I should be free to own any of these, but practicality, i.e, we don't want to have to defend an office building against a tank, mean they are not readily available.

What bothers me is that we have people, like this guys mother, who apparently had all these things that are only honestly useful more mass murder, who may have thought she had to defend herself against some unspecific threat, and this is considered normal. I remain safe with minimal armament, I am not seriously ready to defend myself against a zombie attack, and if the worlds end i think I will be busy with other things than killing my neighbors. Hopefully we will be developing a plan to survive. And if the government comes in with tanks and drones, I don't think I have the ability to actually acquire anything to defend myself, at least not off the shelf.

So yes the gun control freaks do hav the upper hand at the moment. That is because so many crazy people seem to believe they need to have the tools of war to survive in a place where the most difficult daily decision is where to park your SUV.

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

Well, since any firearm can be used to shoot people dead, let's just talk about how easy it is to buy any firearm. For most firearms for most people in most places, fairly easy. For any firearms for any person with a criminal background or mental illness (to a much lesser extent, as this is usually not reported), pretty difficult to get one legally, but no more difficult to get one illegally than anywhere else. For certain types of firearms (automatic weapons, for example, or crew served weapons), it ranges from very difficult to impossible (legally) for anyone. For certain places, such as Chicago, NYC or Washington DC, it's pretty hard for anyone to get any weapon. Of course, those are also the places with the highest gun violence rates. Odd, that.

Re:100 more will die today

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If the price of so-called "freedom" is 20 dead children, then either you do not know what freedom is or the price is too high and I no longer wish to be "free".

Roughy 500 kids go permanently missing each year in the USA and are presumed dead. Millions of public monitoring cameras would surely reduce that number. Are you willing to sacrified the freedom to go about your daily business unwatched in order to save an order of magnitude more children? At what point does the price for a child's life become too high for you?

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

YI ask because I do not know - how easy / difficult is it for an adult in the US to buy a gun / rifle / whatever that can be used to shoot people dead?

It is easy. Here is the algorithm:
1. Get money.
2. Go to store.
3. Buy gun.
4. Depending on the state, you may need to wait up to 30 days to pick up your gun and take it home.

The seller is required to do an instant background check to make sure you have no criminal record. This only takes a few minutes.

About half of American homes have at least one gun.

I own a Remington 870 pump action shotgun, and an AR-15 assault rifle. I haven't fired the shotgun in over a decade, and the ammo I have is probably too stale to work reliably. I fire the AR-15 annually, and replace all the ammo so that it is fresh. If I have to defend my family (or join in an insurrection) the AR-15 is definitely my weapon of choice because it is functionally identical to an M-16 except for the full auto mode, and I had extensive experience with M-16s during a former employment.

I do not own a handgun, and I never will. There are not safe, especially around kids (I have two), and would be less effective than a rifle in almost any defensive scenario.

Re:100 more will die today

[Sarten-X]

Wait a minute...

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying we should consider exceptional events to be exceptional, and not panic over shocking tragedies?

That's not what our Dear Leader says. He says "We can't accept events like this as routine" and promises that he'll try to work through the politics to stop things like this from ever happening again.

Let's not forget another major outlier like this, where a foreign adversary successfully executed an attack in an unexpected manner, using our own infrastructure against us! A brilliant maneuver by the enemy, and thanks to our kneejerk response, we've managed to avoid any recurrences for only a few trillion dollars in cost and a few thousand more American lives lost! With such a clear success rate for a panicked reaction, how can you possibly be advocating moderation?

Obviously, the politicians in charge know that the current public outrage will be the catalyst to move us forward into a safe future, where all risk is eliminated, violence is practically unknown, and environmentally-unfriendly customs have been replaced with three shells.

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

My understanding is that Lanza's rifle was left in the car. He only used pistols in the shooting. So in what way does banning semi-automatic rifles help prevent such acts, even presuming it could be successfully done and the existing semi-automatic rifles removed from circulation, which is doubtful?

Re:100 more will die today

[Jawnn]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day

[citation needed]

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the vast majority of handgun-carrying criminals got a permit or otherwise bought their firearms legally then you're delusional.

Restricting firearms only restricts law-abiding citizens.

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Handguns are useful if you are under siege by an enemy with much greater firepower. All you do is have your handgun in your pocket, get close enough to a soldier with a much nicer gun, kill him and take his gun, and give your handgun to another member of the resistance.

Re:100 more will die today

[GryMor]

"Improving mental health care" and access to it.

Re:100 more will die today

[Stormshadow]

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

-- Samuel Adams

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

Source? Everything I have seen shows the opposite. Gun crime has been virtually eliminated in these countries.

Re:100 more will die today

[FrankSchwab]

If you don't have a felony conviction, or various other disqualifying issues, it takes anywhere from ten minutes to ten days, depending on the locality, to purchase a rifle or handgun.

I'll ask another question - how easy/difficult is it for an adult in your country to buy a knife/car/whatever that can be used to kill people?

These are horrific events, whether they happen in Connecticut or Scotland (http://news.yahoo.com/scottish-town-shares-agony-u-school-tragedy-182038462.html) with guns, or China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)) with knives and hammers. But they pale in comparison with the number and tragedy of single deaths that occur daily. Children are killed in car accidents, playground accidents, by parents, caregivers, and other children, in horrific and tragic ways. But, because they happen one or two at a time, they're a footnote in a local newscast and quickly forgotten. Nothing is done about them.

Heck, even the events of Sept 11, 2001 here in the US were a statistical blip - the 3000 people killed in the attacks are roughly the number of people who die every month in car accidents in the US. And yet we treat it as a national day of mourning, and disassemble our freedoms, to prevent it from happening again.

We as Humans grossly overreact to the extraordinary, and become accustomed to the ordinary. 20 Children killed with a Gun? Time to ban all guns. 40000 infants born in the US every year with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (http://fasdcenter.samhsa.gov/documents/WYNK_Numbers.pdf), and we show a few public service announcements on the TV. Which is the greater tragedy?

Re:100 more will die today

[medcalf]

Crazy people? Tell it to the person in Milwaukee who, on November 21, used his carry weapon to defend himself in a hair salon. Two men knocked, were let in by a customer, then one of the men pulled a gun and aimed it at the customer, who knocked it away and then used his own gun to kill his attacker and wound the attacker's accomplice. Or tell it to the 12 year old Oklahoma girl a couple of months ago, who used the family handgun to defend herself against a home intruder whose history included kidnapping a girl.

Re:100 more will die today

[DarkTempes]

I agree a lot with your post except for that leading statistic.

2009 Cause of death stats by the CDC:
Accidental discharge of firearms: 554
Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 18,735
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 11,493
Total: 30782
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

That's 16% less than "over 100 a day" and nowhere near even third splits
A less misleading and sensationalist introduction would be "about 31 people died a day from gun-related homicides."

I honestly don't see guns involved in suicides as an issue as people that want to kill themselves are going to find ways to do it.
The number we obviously need to work on is the 11.5k gun homicides, especially when you compare us to other countries.

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

So, what are you going to do?

Doing nothing would be more sensible than what we did in 1989 in California. Not only was it pointless (banning weapons based on appearance rather than functionality) but was probably downright counter-productive by outlawing thousands of existing guns and pushing them onto the black market.

Right now there is a big push to "do something", and I hope we don't do something that stupid again. I am not an advocate of more gun control, but if we are going to "do something", than it should be aimed at cheap handguns that are used in killings everyday rather than a futile attempt to prevent the next Sandy Hook.

Re:100 more will die today

[EvilSS]

You might get your wish. Guns are not the only thing there are rumblings on. They want hearings on violence in media (TV/Film/Video Games) as well. Exactly how much freedom are you willing to surrender?

Re:100 more will die today

[swillden]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides.

No, it's more like 50% suicides and 50% homicides. Accidents constitute less than 2% of the total (~600 accidental firearm deaths per year of ~30,000 firearm deaths, per the CDC) and are declining every year.

As for what we can do, here are some ideas:

To tackle suicides, the solution isn't to disarm the suicidal -- after all, someone who wants to kill themselves has many, many options -- but to address the root cause of nearly all suicides: mental illness. Better focus on mental health could probably help to reduce mass murders as well, by getting these people help -- or else determining that it's not safe to have them on the streets, in the event that we don't know how to help them. A big mental health awareness ad campaign, perhaps based on the Ad Council approach used to attack drugs (though hopefully with much more success, since it'll be a positive message rather than scare tactics), could be used to reduce the stigma of mental illness and encourage people to get treatment, and more funding of mental health research would also be extremely productive.

To tackle homicides, I think the biggest single thing we could do is to end the war on drugs. The majority of gun homicides are criminal-on-criminal murders, and nearly all of them are related to gang violence and the illegal drug trade. Our war on drugs is pumping tens of billions of dollars annually into the criminal underground, and essentially funding all of this violence. If drugs were legalized and regulated, the money would instead be flowing through corporations, which fight their battles with lawsuits and advertising campaigns rather than guns. In the short term, we'd probably see an uptick in violence as all of the suddenly-destitute criminal organizations sought frantically for another lucrative line of business (this is exactly what happened when prohibition was ended, BTW, the gang violence of the 30s was from people whose illegal liquor business had suddenly disappeared), but violence should decline dramatically afterwards.

There are plenty of other things we can do, I'm sure, but these would be a very good start. If you also want to work on reducing the already-low rate of accidental firearm deaths, education is the key. The NRA has some great educational materials targeted at kids, including the Eddie Eagle program which focuses on teaching younger kids that guns are dangerous and that they should 1) stop, 2) don't touch, 3) leave the area and 4) tell a responsible adult, if they find a gun or ammunition, and another program aimed at older kids to teach them how to safely and responsibly handle firearms. Getting some basic firearms education added to the public school curriculum would do more to reduce accidental firearms deaths than anything else, I think.

(For anyone turned off by my mention of the NRA, please consider that the NRA consists of two organizations, a firearms training and education organization which is undeniably excellent and completely uncontroversial, and a political organization which is... not uncontroversial).

Re:100 more will die today

[coldfarnorth]

Can you please cite some data?

I've only looked around for a minute or two, and here's what I've got:
  * The US had roughly 3 gun murders per 100 000 population in one year. (Data from 2008 - 2010)
  * The UK had 0.04 per 100 000 population (2011)
  * Australia had 0.09 per 100 000 (2008)

The (gun) murder rate in the US is 7.5 times larger than in the UK, and more than 3 times larger than in Australia. This would tend not to support your point. Since you mentioned crime, I did not cite the Suicide and Accidental Death numbers, but they make the US look even worse.

Incidentally, the country with the highest gun homicide rate in the EU (that I could find data for on short notice) was Luxemburg - 0.6 gun murders per 100 000 population (2009). The US gun homicide rate is 5 times larger . . .

Re:100 more will die today

[Anonymous Coward]

You can own a tank. You can't drive an unmodified tank on the streets because of the damage caused to the street.

Re:100 more will die today

[nschubach]

The legislation that I would support is the requirement that all guns purchased require either a safe being purchased at the same time and/or a certificate of safe ownership big enough to contain such a weapon. You can't force someone to use the safe, but they would own it and it may help curb some of the opportunistic "night stand" situations.

I would also support a requirement that purchasers have taken a mandatory gun safety class. I'd expect it to be more involved than the concealed carry class I took that mainly covered legal ramifications for drawing your weapon and some basic terminology and gun types. I find it a bit annoying that it's easier to own a weapon than it is to drive a car.

What I would not like to see is an outright banning of certain types of guns, or overly restrictive mandates (like must not have had a parking ticket in 3 years.)

Re:100 more will die today

[afaik_ianal]

What an absolute load of clap trap.

Why do people get modded up as insightful for spouting the same old NRA propaganda? Analysing the statistics for violent crime, suicide and accidental deaths is a complicated area of research. Finding localised peaks in violent crime figures does not negate the massive drops in gun incidents we saw in Australia following the effective banning of firearms almost 20 years ago.

And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.

Re:100 more will die today

[ShanghaiBill]

What do you consider sensible?

Of the things you listed, I would definitely support improving mental health care. I have a cousin that had a head injury while he was in the military, and now has many symptoms of schizophrenia and paranoid delusions. I have gone with him to the VA about a dozen times. We never saw the same doctor twice. They will usually prescribe routine treatment, such as Haldol, which is effective against schizophrenia, but actually makes the paranoia worse. We then have to explain to the doctor that we already tried that a decade ago, and perhaps he should take a few minutes to actually read the patients medical history. The amount of waste and duplication is so immense, that I am not sure improving things would even cost more. One cheap way to improve the situation (while cutting costs) would be to empower the nurses, who usually know far more than the doctors about individual patients, to make more decisions, and then fire the dumbest doctors.

Better mental heath would not only reduce gun deaths, but would lower all crime. It has been estimated that half the people in prison have untreated mental conditions. How many of them wouldn't be there if they got treatment earlier? If we spent less on prisons and more on mental health, we would probably come out way ahead.

Re:100 more will die today

[deroby]

honestly : citation needed !

I really don't have a clue where you are getting this from ?!
Sure, I agree, Breivik surely upped the average about a year ago and gets plenty of attention. And I'm sure there's plenty of crime going on all over Europe, some of which involves guns; but whenever I hear of some guy (it's always guys it seems) going mental and starting a killing spree at the local school : my bet is it's in the USA.

Re:100 more will die today

[afaik_ianal]

The catch-22 is that your relative value on human life makes you an incredibly inappropriate person for making those life-and-death decisions.

There are a million and one reasons why someone might be in your house (or why you might think someone's in your house).

I'm not suggesting being robbed isn't most likely explanation, but it's just stuff. Your stuff is not worth extrajudicial killing someone over.

Re:100 more will die today

[mapsjanhere]

Well, it's only 2008 by your calculation, we wait until Australia catches up to 2012 . Bloody time zones

Re:100 more will die today

[Darinbob]

Provide more checks, that's common sense. This includes checks at swap meet sales, which is a big loop hole in many gun control laws. And yet people support check-free swap meets, claiming something about rights to sell private property to any individual they like. If a gun store has to do background checks then a gun store at a swap meet must do this also.

Everyone should also be required to take a safety class, much in the same way that we have testing before being allowed to drive a dangerous machine on the roads. Remember when the NRA used to be about safety? More people are killed by accidental use of guns than are killed in the rare shooting spree. We need to move away from the swagger culture of gun ownership and towards a safety minded one.

The checks are not burdensome. There is no constitutional right to easy to acquire weapons.

Re:100 more will die today

[big_e_1977]

So what is your solution to the home invader breaking into your house? He's certainly not there to help you bake some brownies. Do you beg for your life, try to appeal to his rational side so he won't decide to extrajudicially kill you because he doesn't want to be identified and face jail time? Maybe if he's nice he will make the proper life and death decision and let you live or simply beat you to within an inch of your life. Pity if he decides that your stuff is worth killing you over.

Re:100 more will die today

[SeaFox]

Over a hundred people die from firearms every day in America. Roughly about 1/3 accidents, 1/3 suicides, and 1/3 deliberate homicides.

Here's the statistic for 2009. They average out to 85.88 deaths per day for firearms in combining those categories. The figure for accidental deaths was not accessable without sifting through the sorce tables, but of that 31,347 deaths homicides made up 11,493 of them (source) and suicides 18,735 (source).

Do you have something to back up your "over a hundred every day" claim?

Re:100 more will die today

[BetterSense]

How many people did not die in the Clackamas Mall shooting a couple days ago? Apparently a bystander who was legally carrying a handgun for defense confronted the shooter, but did not fire due to presence of bystanders. Handgun vs. rifle is a very frightening disparity, btw.

http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

How many people didn't die that would have? Hard to say, but I'm sure all we will hear in the news is about the shooter how the incident proves we need to ban guns.

I'll go ahead and say it

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be a reminder to all of us to be that friend he probably didn't have. I'd have killed myself in college if it weren't for a few online friends. Skearrit and Zenobia, that's you. It's WoW now instead of MUDs, but people are the same.

Re:I'll go ahead and say it

[HornWumpus]

Curse you Skearrit and Zenobia. AC is the most trollish poster on /.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it ran Linux

In all seriousness, it's fairly likely that it did. The guy was a diagnosed aspie and was reputed at high school to be a computer genius. Which doesn't mean he was a computer genius, but it does make it likely that he was not only running Windows. Who knows, he may even have had a slashdot account.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

He must have run Linux because he was a genius? Bahahaha!

I run Linux because I'm a masochist.

Re:Whatever

[The MAZZTer]

That's funny, everything I've heard says the ONLY WAY to be completely sure your data is wiped is to physically destroy the disk.

Of course it wouldn't hurt to do a software-based wipe first, and who says he didn't?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Jeng]

A gun in hand is quicker than a couple passes with DBAN.

Why post his name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why give credit? That's why those people do those things - to be remembered as not nobody.

Be aware of your responsibility as a news outlet. Let them be a nobody forever.

Re:Now he's a hero

[YodasEvilTwin]

You're the only one saying that as far as I can see. Perhaps you're just afraid of saying it straight up without the false quotes....

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was a diagnosed aspie and was reputed at high school to be a computer genius.

To the general public, "Plays lots of video games" == "Computer Genius".

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Hatta]

Why do anything? Destroy the secure passphrase in your brain and your encrypted storage is as good as gone.

Re:They can still recover data

[NevarMore]

The fingerprints on his keyboard and they way the letters are worn will show which keys he used most

CSI: NCIS New Miami York has determined that he used R S T L N E keys more than others, this has determined that he was likely an English speaker and had a real hard on for Vanna White. This attack may have been a plea for help after his failed attempt to get on Wheel of Fortune.

Re:Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why you'd say this?

I mean, yeah, DBAN would nuke data... but that takes HOURS when I can drill, shoot, or microwave a drive in minutes. Even an oven to degauss would be quicker.

Shattering a hard drive immediately takes it beyond all off-the-shelf forensics providers without leaving any doubts about the firmware, disk recovery sectors, MBR backups... It also takes it beyond the capabilities of most agencies that aren't commercial. You simply *can't* plug it into a purchased capture device at that point.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to recover it with cleanroom techniques at that point... but I'm pretty sure recovery is exactly...that... theory -- when you're pulling dust, debris, and shards of glass out of it... And even if it's not -- it's a massive time difference.

Are you trying to allude to the cloud data that should exist? I think half the point of the physical destruction was to delay and wholly prevent discovering any cloud sources he may have used as long as possible.

They'll have to get his email address from friends and family now, look up the logs, check with the ISP for any traffic from that originating address... look for any traffic on a huge list of known providers from the same address ...filter that down.

Unless his ISP has incredible capture, it's going to be near impossible to find what website or forums he's visited in a timely manner... much less chat programs or other likely mediums like WoW/Ventrilo

Their best bet is probably actually checking the home router to see if it has logs or DNS cached...

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[icebike]

Indeed, if there were any signs to be gleaned from his computer, it doesn't matter since they'll be ignored anyway

One would hope so.

The alternative is even more government intrusion into your computers and communications.

The fact that he did destroy them suggests he knew there was stuff on them which might be of use to the police. Since he obviously intended to take his own life, none of this could be used against him personally. One has to wonder if he had fellow travelers in his journey to insanity that he thought he could protect via destruction.

I would imagine his ISP is surrendering logs at this very moment.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[sjames]

Physical destruction is the gold standard for this sort of thing.

Of course, the real question is why did he do any of this? The way he wiped his computer is fairly low on the list of things better left undone that day.

Sez you

[Safety Cap]

I was running late for work today and realized I forgot to do laundry over the weekend.

The only thing left to do was put my full body kevlar on over my "Venom" costume.

Fortunately, I work for a bunch of blind people.

Diminishing returns

[ZombieBraintrust]

We focus plenty of resources on those everyday homicides. Those homicides are the reason we have security gaurds with guns at the entrances to Banks and not elementry schools. Spending more resources on that problem won't neccesarily change anything. At some point your just harrasing innocent people who fit profiles. It should also be noted that violent crime of that sort has been on a decline. Plus the 1/3 deliberate homicides include plenty of people involved in crimes. If your not sucidal, don't own a gun, and not involved in crime your not at much risk. At some level society doesn't care abuot those deaths.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[sjames]

And because they're not really warning signs since more often than not, nothing happens when they're present and typically nobody gives them a thought except in retrospect.

You must be new here.

[conspirator23]

Great. I was wondering what it would take for the Slashdot crowd to pervert this dipshit into a hero.

"Dude, check it out! He destroyed all his data before he did this! That way, them dirty screws in law enforcement won't ever know a thing about him, won't understand what happened, and won't have any way to prevent it from happening again! Yeah! That's so awesome! Power to the privacy! Privacy rights for all! Woo!"

Attempting to smash up his PC and HDD and leaving the wreckage in his place is about the most n00bish form of data destruction you can imagine, and has probably only been partially successful at best. I'll leave it to the numerous other comments already posted to detail this sick kid's failure to cover his tracks adequately. If you're going to irresponsibly portray privacy and security advocates as paranoid deviants who cheer mass murder, you're going to need to try harder.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Jawnn]

Because the hammer is faster, given the limited resources the cops are likely to expend on attempts to reconstruct the drive's contents.

Re:Now he's a hero

[lilfields]

Warrant-less wiretaps are a lot different than a murder investigation that has established evidence and a warrant.

Why Physical Destruction Works

[Jaborandy]

When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets. Here's why it works:

The surface of the platters is covered in magnetic data, but in order to read it you have to be able to pass a head over it. If you bend the platters, put a few jagged holes in them, and destroy the bearing center, there is no technology that can run a read head reliably over a data track. If the platters are bent, you can't install them in a new drive or mount new heads. You also can't flatten them to the original tolerances without destroying the magnetic surface coating.

The biggest hand-waving magic people fear is the electon microscope techinques which have been shown to dig up even erased data by looking at the edges of the latest written data to see what was there before. While this is technically possible in ideal conditions, it requires that you can move the platter under the tip of the microscope with incredible precision. Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

Pistol rounds generally dent the platters pretty seriously. Rifle rounds generally punch through leaving jagged holes. A combination of both is a fun day at the range, makes great desk art, and securely pretects your drives from ever being decoded again.

--Jaborandy

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[vlm]

I don't think you actually do this, at least have not in some years. I in fact do tear drives apart and melt the exterior aluminum casting for ... casting (duh, nothings a better casting raw material than cast product.. trying to cast extruded alloys is usually an exercise in futility).

Anyway I have the scar on my hand to prove that you don't do that kinda of stuff with modern glass platters, they are not safety glass they pretty much explode into shrapnel. Yes they do bend, in fact they bend pretty well before they shatter. Weird but true. I would hazard a guess that "most" drives bigger than 10 gigs are glass platter and very few below a gig are glass platter. Yes in the 90s they were all metal of various kinds, and made nice windchimes and targets.

One interesting observation is for decades all you need to completely disassemble a hard drive is about 4 torx size screws, like T5, T20 and a couple others. Also the color of platters follows no obvious pattern over the decades due to different chemistry.

But don't go telling kids now a days to smash up their platters, or there's gonna be sharper than razor glass shards everywhere and/or stitches.

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[blueg3]

Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

While the MFM approach has never been used in practice and certainly doesn't work on any modern drive, the quoted sentence isn't true. MFM and STM are both quite capable of sensing the distance between the tip and the material accurately -- especially if you know in advance some information about the material's proeprties -- and automatically keeping the tip from crashing into the material. A tip crash isn't really a big deal, either. It's easy enough to make a new one or to reshape the current (deformed) tip so that it works again.

Re:Why Physical Destruction Works

[DerekLyons]

When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets.

Other than enlarging your ego, why use bullets?
 

Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.

Yeah - nobody has ever managed to invent a system for precisely determining the position of a surface and then precisely positioning the tip of the microscope in relationship to it. Oh, wait. That's exactly how this type of microscope work in the first place!

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[mcgrew]

I run Linux because I can't afford a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it ran Linux

The end of the world will come when a introverted former postal employee + warcraft fan writes a ReiserFS IFS driver for windows and proceeds to install mcafee on first successfull boot while listening to linkin park.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

I run Linux because I can't afford a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

I run Linux because I own a Mac and I'm not a masochist.

*confused

[wierd_w]

I am often confused, and more than just a little alarmed at the polarization that stories like this cause.

On one side, there are the people that would rather live in an Aldus Huxley novel than suffer the slight against their perceptions of safety that allowing the general public access to firearms presents. (Seriously. If there are 100 shootings per day, out of 250 million persons in the USA, your chances of being so shot on any given day are 4 places to the right of the decimal point in terms of percentages-- (borrowed possibly false statistic from previous poster.) At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe. Contemplate that when you advocate stampeeding over peoples rights because kids were involved.)

Then, on the other, you have the people that feel we are already deep inside an aldus huxley novel, and have a "freedom fighter" complex. (The types who wear the tinfoil, you know whom it is of which I speak.)

Where are the people like me, who live in the middle? The people who deplore the senseless death, but who blame a faulted cultue that stigmatizes people with mental health issues, makes care for such insanely unaffordable, and tries to pretend the problem isn't serious? The ones who understand that guns are simply a tool, and the purpose they serve in the hands of the public is a preventative measure against corruption in high places, and nothing more?

The solution to deaths like these is NOT "gun control".

The solution to deaths like this is to get people the help they so desperately need, without any overtones of disparagment, or of belittling the people who need that help.

Outlawing guns does NOT help the mentally ill get the help the need, before they snap and take others with them. It simply sweeps the issue under the rug, because outlawing the tool used for the killing is simply easier. Nevermind that any sense of security the measure brings is false, and endagers more innocent people. (If not a gun, then perhaps a bomb, or poison, or any number of other methods.)

I am tired of these stories. I am tired of the shield rattling. I am tired of the "Ra Ra Rah!" And gung-ho idiocy of both sides.

In cases like these, there are *ONLY* victims. There are no bad guys, unless you care to look in the mirror. Our blind complacency to the sufferings of others is what CAUSES this shit. Everything about this story is tradgedy. Stop looking for a fucking scapegoat.

Seriously. It confuses the fuck out of my why it always must be so, that we all lose our minds over this, and dive headfirst from the frypan into the fire.

We like to pretend that we have sharp minds.

For FSM's sake, fucking use them.

Re:*confused

[afaik_ianal]

At that rate, you are more likely to die in an airline catastrophe.

That suggests the figures you took from the previous poster are extremely flawed. Over 30,000 americans die from gunshots every (not to mention the 75,000 who are injured). Air crash deaths are extremely rare - there have been a number of years recently with no air crash deaths in the US.

Re:*confused

[wierd_w]

Because the .22 calibre rifles and handguns used by this shooter are NOT "rediculously powerful firearms."

Seriously. They are target practice rounds, that are useless agains even the softest of bullet resisting armors.

Here, here's a picture for you to mull over:
size comparison of several standardized rounds

See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.

Compare that with the REAL assault rifle rounds on the far left, and you have a better idea of why this is a farce.

Re:*confused

[jedinite]

See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.

Yeah, no.

The round used by the primary firearm in this incident was, according to all the reports I've seen, the .223, aka the 7th round in your chart labeled "5.56 x 45 Nato." There's an important digit of distinction between a .22 and a .223. The projectile is only slightly wider, sure, but it has a lot more mass (approx double) and is moving at a much higher velocity (around 900-940 m/s vs 300-500 m/s).

For pedantics, .223 and 5.56 are not the exact same thing, but they're externally the same, i.e. the same size cartridge (casing and bullet). The interior volume of the 5.56 round is smaller, and can create slightly larger chamber pressures when fired in a gun designed solely for .223.

Not that it matters, but I'm a certified firearms instructor (certified to teach pistol, rifle, home firearm safety and personal protection) and strong advocate that the concepts being banded about for "gun control" are absolutely ludicrous at best, but that's not relevant to this specific bit of misinformation.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

But "Plays lots of video games" means he was a Windows user... Windows 8 must really be that bad...

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! What better place to meet hot chicks and SCORE!!!!

Stop watching Fox

[SmallFurryCreature]

Seriously kid, stop watching fox, your bain is rotting away. Australia and Europe both got lower crime rates.

Re:Stop watching Fox

[epyT-R]

You might consider also taking your own advice about NPR, CNN, ABC, NBC, and the NYT. Along with fox, none of these are real news sources anymore. They're propagandists that tow the party line of their financial backers.

The gp should not have been labeled troll. Moderators need to learn what 'troll' actually means. It does not meant to be a label for statements that piss you off.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[jythie]

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[DrgnDancer]

The guy killed 28 people, including 20 small kids, in a international media circus that included the personal attention of the POTUS. Every single piece of that hard drive is in an FBI clean lab with specialists trying every trick they know, and NSA consultants coming in just to see if they help. If there's anything the FBI and NSA specialists can't figure out, any university in the country will be happy to lend whatever professor is most appropriate out, and the national intelligences services of any county in western world and a good chunk of the developing world will be available for consult should it be required.

Trust me, for something like this, resources are not going to be an issue.

Re:Whatever

[icebike]

The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.

Ah, no, they will get nothing back.

There is a huge myth around data recovery from physically damaged hard disk drives that all stems from an article written by Peter Gutmann as a research paper.
In the real world (Even the NSA's real world) this can not be done.

They have a much better chance of getting something back from the nvram in a cell phone uses as a clay pigeon.

Re:We need a national registry and federal licensi

[NatasRevol]

And people who want to shoot other people.

Re:My idea for preventing this from happening agai

[Fned]

I'm totally sure that students with fireworks would never dream of regularly pranking whatever school had this setup...

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[JeanCroix]

Four isn't exactly an arsenal. And she was into recreational shooting, they weren't just self defense. But she is indeed the answer in that she obviously did not secure her guns well enough from her disturbed son.

Re:No online footprint? Bullshit.

[DrgnDancer]

So when his logs reveal that his IP address has been hooked up to an encrypted annonymizing service pretty much 24/7, and that all traffic from his computer went to IP addresses in the Cayman Islands before it ever went onto the Internet? It's really not that hard to make it difficult to track your online history. Given a lot of time and resources the police and FBI can probably dig up at least part of his online footprint eventually, but it's only been a few days. If he was employing forensic countermeasures on his online activities, it's certainly possible that it will be quicker and easier to get the info from his computer. Especially since it seems like his data destruction attempts were somewhat amateurish.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

You see, you can claim to want a gun for self defense but how many do you need?

How many rights do YOU need? What is it about the concept of a right that is hard to grasp? Is there some new twist to "rights" that says that you can only exercise one to the limit that someone else thinks you need to?

Yes, you have the right to free speech, but I think you've said quite enough already. Sit down and shut up, you don't need the right to free speech anymore.

What did she need that arsenal for?

Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.

Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.

Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.

How about we take this message away from this? "Evil people will always do evil things, no matter what we do to stop them. Trying to stop evil people requires stopping nice people from doing things with laws that evil people will simply ignore, just like they ignore all the existing laws."

The only way to have stopped this nutcase was to put him in prison (or confinement) at the first sign he might be "unstable". Now, you might be imprisoning a lot of people who don't fit YOUR definition of stable, and who wouldn't ever kill anyone, but if you can stop the death of 20 schoolchildren by putting a million oddballs into prison, isn't it worth it?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Spaseboy]

I am glad there won't be any "guilt by association" witch hunts like people already have engaged in incorrectly by hunting down Ryan Lanza and attacking Blizzard.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[MaWeiTao]

I'm sure he was fully aware that the authorities and the media would try to understand him. I'd guess his intent was to do something horrible, hitting the most vulnerable part of society in order to inflict maximum pain. That he could leave everyone with questions to which they'd never have answers was the final aspect of his plan.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Eh, even frat bros have xboxes now. I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to type in 'HTML Machine Language' in order to be a computer genius these days... Taking the side panel off your case and just running it that way is also useful, like growing a beard if you want to be taken seriously in the humanities.

Re:Yeah well

[Obfuscant]

Australia banned automatic rifles after several mass shootings and since then, they have had none.

TSA banned liquids and gels in more than small quantities, and since then, there have been no incidents of liquid-based explosions on US aircraft.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[deroby]

Disclaimer : this is just my personal opinion.

Maybe you look at this the wrong way, I guess the mother didn't look at guns as self-defence but rather as a hobby. Why does Jay Leno need 100 cars ?

Friend of mine has 5 fire-arms (guns & rifles) and makes his own ammo. If he ever goes mental I'm sure it will make the world-news too... But as far as I can tell he's a sane, laid-back kind of guy with a hobby he practices perfectly within the law. Who am I to deprive him of that ?

And where to draw the line ? Crossbows ? Bows ? Slingshots ? Knives ?
IMHO, most people around here (Belgium, strict laws) play with guns for a hobby, few have it for self-defence. AFAIK.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Charliemopps]

She had 2 handguns, completely reasonable for self defense. A standard .223 carbine... standard rifle you can get at walmart, fun to shoot and then a shotgun, pretty typical for hunting small game.

The problem here was this guy went nutz, and there was no way for him to get help. He wanted the world to know about his rage and the media gives him a relatively easy way to get the world to hear about it as long as he does something worse than the last guy. If there's any industry to blame here it's the news media for sensationalizing this and the medical industry for not providing the help he needs.

If you want to kill a lot of people, making guns illegal isn't going to stop you. They are simply the most accessible means right now. Make them less accessible and he would have picked up a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel... and probably taken out the whole school. An Ammonium nitrate is REALLY easy to get.

Re:Whatever

[blueg3]

Gutmann's paper is actually the basis for the myth that you can recover data from a logically-wiped drive: that is, one that's been entirely overwritten with other data (e.g. zeroes).

That, too, cannot be done.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But when questioned further, they'll all remember tons of warning signs that they ignored, because nobody gives a shit until somebody starts killing.

The problem with 'warning signs' is that(without a much larger and better constructed study population, which you would be unlikely to get) is selection bias: It is, indeed, very unlikely that somebody who goes in and shoots up the place acted 100% normally in the time leading up to doing so. However, without doing an equally-invasive-and-thorough investigation of a fairly large number of demographically similar non-shooters, how do you separate signal from noise?

Practically any instance of assholery, alienation, or general dark muttering looks like a 'warning sign' once you've gone and emptied a few magazines into cowering elementary school children; but that is diagnostically useless unless you have reason to suspect that a given behavior doesn't show up(or shows up orders of magnitude less frequently) in non spree shooters.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Brian Feldman]

What a retarded waste of resources. A media circus helps no one. The for-profit medical industry in this country isn't meant to help anyone get better if more profit could be squeezed out by keeping them just barely happy and not ever getting better. This is most especially true for mental healthcare.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[chad.koehler]

This post went from protecting rights to advocating for thought crime. A+ would read again.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Runaway1956]

Three weapons is not an "arsenal". When people use that term, I expect to find dozens of weapons, not ten or less. Owning 3 or more shotguns means that you use shotguns to hunt different kind of game - maybe ducks, upland fowl, and squirrels, maybe a twelve guage for slugs to hunt deer.

That small .223 is great for varmints such as groundhog - generally the same person will own one or more larger deer rifles, like a 30-30 or a 30-06.

If our gun enthusiast also goes to target ranges, he may own yet another weapon that has been customized for extreme accuracy. .270, .243, or .223 are all great target rounds.

Arsenal. I've only seen three specific weapons mentioned, and some references to an "assault rifle". That "assault rifle" merits some concern, but it's not clear yet what they are referring to. Like as not, some fool has characterized a deer rifle as an "assault weapon", but he may well have been carrying an SKS or something.

As for "why so much ammo" - 100 rounds is no big deal anywhere. Ammo comes in boxes of 20, and it's not uncommon to purchase 2 to 10 boxes at a time. Anyone serious about marksmanship might buy 100 boxes at a time. It only takes several minutes to use up a box, if you're carefully aiming. If you're just having fun, it only takes a minute.

People who ask these questions and make these assumptions are obviously not outdoorsmen.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[JeanCroix]

The AR-15 is a very common rifle for recreational and competition shooting. "Nut" comment aside, she was ultimately responsible: 1) Not properly securing them, 2) Not just getting rid of them while having an unstable individual living in her house.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[nurb432]

There is no facts here, he was mentally unstable, and there could just have likely been nothing on there but it was 'his' and didn't want anyone getting it.

I would really doubt he would be trying to 'save' someone else, as he clearly had little respect for others.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sure, it's just the little thing that you can't do as much damage armed with only a knife as with a handful of semi-automatics...

Quite so. They found this out the hard way in Cambodia, Uruguay, China, Turkey, Germany, the Soviet Union and Guatemala.

Millions and millions of times.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Chewbacon]

You forget the US wouldn't be around if it wouldn't be for the private stock of weapons our ancestors had laying around. I'm not sure if I've been thorough enough with my own homework, but I've noticed something like this hasn't happened in Texas (castle law) or Florida (stand your ground law).

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[nitehawk214]

The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.

Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...

FP/TP Ratio? So people with a high First Post to Third Post ratio are more likely to be killers? I knew it....

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[volvox_voxel]

rights aren't ‘rights’ if someone can take ‘em away; they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country: a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. “ — George Carlin, “You Have No Rights” (via kristinovich)\

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[jekewa]

The responsibility lies with the nutbag who shot up the school and then committed suicide. It might be nice to try to find some reason or trigger for it, but really it was the actions of one individual performing a heinous act. He took advantage of the situation and executed his twisted plan, or reacted completely insanely, or something in between. While in a situation where he may not have had such easy access to such weapons (for whatever reason) it may not have happened the way it did, but there's no way of knowing for sure that he wouldn't have done something similar another way.

Whatever you think of her gun selection, in firepower or quantity, it seems she gained them legally and behaved with them responsibly. It can surely be argued that no matter how stringent any gun control law, short of completely banning gun ownership, she could have followed all of those more strict laws and still had weapons that her son would then acquire illegally and use incorrectly.

There's no evidence she didn't properly secure her firearms and that he simply defeated said security. Locking something in a gun safe isn't something that would stop a motivated and capable 20-year old. He could surely have known where she kept any locker or trigger-lock keys, and reached them. Short of that any number of tools could have been used to overcome many home gun lockers, especially those meant to keep children safe and not truly secure the weapons.

Some blurb I saw somewhere said that Connecticut only requires locking up firearms when there are minors living in the home, and since he was 20 he was not a minor. Yes, a responsible gun owner should have locked up the weapons regardless, but again, a 20-year old familiar enough with the weapons to do what he did would have surely been able to open said locks.

Additionally, while the actions show in hindsight that he was plenty unstable (tore up first-graders...'nuff said), there's not been convincing evidence presented (that I've seen or read) that indicates he was unstable to the point that one might think he would do what he did. Too many interviews point out "what a quiet person" or "nice fella" or whatever. I'm sure his mother thought she understood whatever was going through his head, as most parents will believe with their kids, even when they're wrong. We'd all like to believe that we'd be able to see the breakdown coming, and even if there was any indication he was about to snap, perhaps she didn't envision he'd snap like this, or on that day.

These are the basic facts. She had legally obtained weapons. He obtained them from her (and killed her with them). He is responsible for the actions that took the lives of those children and their protectors.

no all domestic terrorists commit suicide

[peter303]

They are are either caught or did not plan that far ahead. The Arizona congressman shooter and theater shooter were captured alive.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[PopeRatzo]

Who knows, he may even have had a slashdot account.

Say, has anyone seen pudge lately?

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[omnichad]

Not that it matters. Modern hard drives are unrecoverable after one pass.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Seumas]

It was motivated by availability of guns.
No, wait -- because of mental illness issues in America.
No, wait -- because of video games.
Wait, wait, -- I mean, because of goths.
Wait, no, I mean it was because of music.
What am I saying? I meant to say it was because of movies and television.
Oh, geeze, I forgot -- it's because "they took god out of schools".
Oh, whoops. No, it's because not enough people at the school were armed.
Uh oh, no it's because of the evil internet.
No, no, no -- it's because of bad parenting.
Oh, boy, it's actually because he was a loner and didn't fit in.
No, wait a minute -- it's clearly because of bullies.

Or maybe everyone on the planet should shut the fuck up, grow up, and acknowledge that fucked up shit happens that is beyond our control and you can't blame freak occurrences into never happening and therefore somehow assuring eternal safety. People will lose their shit. Nature will throw something totally fucked at you. Accidents will happen. Mistakes will be made. Instead of realizing fucked up shit happens, we aid those trying to manipulate these freak events to push their personal agendas by somehow trying to reverse-engineer a stream of chaos -- which butterfly's flapping wings in the world lead to the hurricane?

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[LordLucless]

He wasn't advocating thought crime. His rhetorical question at the end of the final paragraph should have been enough to see that. He was pointing out that sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease, and that what we have isn't even a cure, but a bit of quack medicine.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Em Adespoton]

She had 2 handguns, completely reasonable for self defense. A standard .223 carbine... standard rifle you can get at walmart, fun to shoot and then a shotgun, pretty typical for hunting small game.

Logical; I don't see a problem with that. Of course, I see no reason to own guns at all unless you need them for hunting, but that's a different issue. I see no need to go after the mother for owning ready-made lethal weapons -- everyone has them in one form or another.

The problem here was this guy went nutz, and there was no way for him to get help. He wanted the world to know about his rage and the media gives him a relatively easy way to get the world to hear about it as long as he does something worse than the last guy.

People don't live in a vaccuum. The problem here is that the guy wanted to be noticed, and felt that everyone was ignoring him. He kept escalating his cries for attention until they reached a level that we would consider "insane". To me that speaks of intense depression, loneliness and desperation. Not saying this in any way excuses what he does, but it provides some context.

If there's any industry to blame here it's the news media for sensationalizing this and the medical industry for not providing the help he needs.

The news media is just as much a weapon as the gun. The news media doesn't kill people (usually).
The medical industry DOES provide the help he needed -- the problem is that there was no bridge from his own social circles to the medical attention he needed.

If you want to kill a lot of people, making guns illegal isn't going to stop you. They are simply the most accessible means right now. Make them less accessible and he would have picked up a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel... and probably taken out the whole school. An Ammonium nitrate is REALLY easy to get.

This misses the point I think. The issue here is that as a society, we don't care for each other -- it's one of the nasty side effects of humanism (which also has a lot of benefits, such as modern science). The side effect of this is that being depressed and wanting to draw attention to his situation, he went for an *image* to present. Guns in the US have a flashy image. The rest of his gear goes along with this. Blowing up himself and a school with ammonium nitrate wouldn't have the same effect, because our society doesn't glamourize such things.

I mean really... if I wanted to make a statement by killing a bunch of innocent people, I wouldn't even need ammonium nitrate; a large bucket of bleach and ***** into the ventilation system would work just as well.

However, you don't see Rambo fighting for our freedom with chlorine gas; instead, we point out (here comes Godwin) the evil Germans and Hussein using it underhandedly. Therefore, anyone doing this is going to get the WRONG sort of attention.

So what's the answer? Not gun control; the only reason *most* people have guns is that they've been conditioned by their society into thinking guns are good and make them more important/safe (just like diamonds). "Controlling" guns won't change this. The answer is to actually change how society portrays weapons use in general, and guns in particular. Make the consequences to mis-use societal. Request that the entertainment industry lay off the guns (I mean, these days most premeditated incidents of this nature would use RPGs if most people could get their hands on them) and show people using more inventive and socially-related methods of causing mayhem and destruction. Make the popular methods of causing death at a distance be ones that, in real life, provide lots of early 'tells'. The problem with guns is that they are readily available in inert form, and then can suddenly cause a LOT of damage. Unless you live on a farm, building fertilizer bombs is going to flag some databases as soon as you attempt to purchase/steal th

Re:Why?

[mapsjanhere]

Because these mass shootings are typically massive ego trips by normally pretty bright people. It doesn't help their future "bad boy" image if they find boy on boy hentai or a fetish for amish cooking on the computer afterwards.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[jedidiah]

You should read the DSM-IV sometime.

Pretty much anyone can be "diagnosed" with something. It's not just Aspergers.

This is one good reason to never trust anyone that calls themselves a mental health professional. You never know when the Soviet or McCarthy era abuses will begin again.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ArsenneLupin]

IMHO, most people around here (Belgium, strict laws) play with guns for a hobby, few have it for self-defence. AFAIK.

The reason for this may be that it's illegal to acquire a gun for the purpose of self-defence (but obviously, it is legal to use a gun for self-defence which you happened to have lying around after having gotten it for "sports" purposes...)

==> so anybody who thinks he might need a gun for self-defence (because living at a remote location, which has already been burgled a couple of times) will just lie through his teeth to get one...

Guns And Abortion

[assertation]

Right wingers believe that new laws will prevent people from getting abortions. Why don't they believe that new laws will prevent people from shooting guns at people?

so?

[ILongForDarkness]

'Does he have friends he communicates with online? Was there a fight with somebody?'

Who cares? Lots of people have lots of shit in their life they don't go off on a shooting spree at a school they don't go to. How about blaming it on being bat-shit crazy and having access to guns?

Oh good.

[glwtta]

You found a way to work a "tech" angle into this story.

Congratulations.

Israel Civil Force

[Bodhammer]

I just read this entire thread and find it fascinating. There are some well thought out arguments on both sides. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Israel) . This is a volunteer force, administered by the police. One of the areas they protect is schools and kindergartens. The volunteers are screened, get training, and provide a first line of defense until the troops show up. They have over 50,000 in the force out of a population of 7.7 million. If we had the same percentage in the USA we would have over 20 million people helping with security and crime.
I'm interested in what this community thinks. Would/Could this work in the USA? Would you volunteer for 12 hours/month?

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[jfengel]

And that's why Asperger's was eliminated in the DSM-V.

The new DSM is problematic, just as the last one was. Yes, it's certainly possible to abuse it. But the psychiatrists really are trying to help people, and they're just beginning to explore a difficult new field.

The range of human behavior is far, far more variable and intricate than any protein or subatomic particle. A century ago the science was nonexistent, then barbaric, then more harmful than helpful. Now occasionally it does more good than harm. If you don't like your shrink, get a new one. But rejecting the whole profession is just... well, paranoid.

The DSM was not concocted as part of a plot to lock people up. Its goal is to help. It may not, and that's why there's a DSM-6 already in the works. That's how science works.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Synerg1y]

I think Tarantino said it best:

blame the playmakers

source

Seeing and doing are two different things, however we live in a nation of retards, so every time something bad happens, the tards come out in force with their "ideas".

My thoughts are it's a tragedy, there was a time you could walk into a school without a visitor badge to pick somebody up, it's not the guns that are to blame, it's the fact that we as a society are producing people who go out into their neighborhoods and do such things. I don't hear anybody proposing a solution for that.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Lehk228]

I run linux because i can't be bothered with windows bullshit on my laptop, i have work to do and that laptop is 7 years old.

i run windows on my desktop because I still play video games, but as i get older i play fewer and fewer games that can't run on linux, both because i play fewer games and more and more will play on linux

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[hierofalcon]

It is true that the 2nd amendment was written in a time when none of these existed. But it was also written in the time immediately after the Revolutionary War when we fought for our freedom from England. Every weapon of war was included in their minds when they wrote that amendment. They didn't exclude cannons. They didn't exclude warships. If they'd just wanted people to have guns to hunt with, they would have. They wanted a people who were armed and ready to fight the next war that came along.

The reason they didn't need to worry about Farmer Jones up the road going off with a cannon and firing a shot at the school house is exactly the same reason you don't have to worry about nuclear weapons or cruise missiles or tanks or F-15s parked on your street. The big ordnance was expensive then and it is expensive today. Sheer cost of purchase, maintenance, and operating limited the people who could afford them then, just as now. But you can be assured that if modern weapons had been around then and used to fight off the British, there wouldn't have been an exception for them in the 2nd. Every military weapon was included so a militia could be called up at a moments notice to protect against any and all invaders.

Yes, we have armed forces now. Yes, we have a National Guard now. But a lot of them are elsewhere and are likely to be elsewhere for the long term. They aren't hanging around the U.S. So just because times have changed doesn't mean the risk has. I hope we never have a government go actively against its citizens in the U.S. But it has happened recently in many other countries. I don't like the fact that so many people feel the need to potentially defend themselves against the government at all. I personally don't. But I do respect their positions considering all that has gone on in the world in the last century by supposedly benign governments.

I wish there was no need to worry about crime as well, but the police manifestly cannot be everywhere at once. They mostly react to crimes that go on for a long time (riots for example) or react after a crime has occurred. Both make it necessary for a large portion of the population to wish to have a gun to protect themselves and the bigger the advantage that gun has over what the intruder might have, the better.

I appreciated the comment by seumas. He summed the argument threads up nicely.

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[HornWumpus]

I don't agree with the clams about much; but anybody who would see a shrink ought to have their head examined.

Vent to a sympathetic bartender, it's cheaper and more fun.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

actually, it's pretty much the quintessential american tragedy

we gut mental healthcare safety nets, and healthcare in general we don't care about

we flood society with guns

and here we have a deranged person with a gun. it's called cause and effect. of course lanza can happen anywhere in the world, but because of american society, adam lanza becomes more likely here

adam lanza as a phenomenon says a lot of about the USA's culture and priorities in regards to healthcare and guns, and less about humanity in general

and we as americans can do something about it, by emphasizing healthcare as the solution to our problems, and deemphasizing guns as the solution to our problems, and we can make adam lanzas less likely to happen

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Seumas]

I don't think that is cause and effect whatsoever. If that were the case, these would be regular occurrences; not statistical anomalies. The frequency of mass killings and the number of people in them is so small (though that doesn't seem to be the case, based on coverage, of course) that to treat them in the same way you would a flu epidemic is sort of silly.

And if it were an issue of "there's lots of guns and no mental health care", then you'd have tons of people shooting up everything in site, instead of just the occasional person who went berzerk.

You are not going to stop people from shooting up schools or places of work or other gatherings, no matter what restrictions you put on guns. You aren't going to stop people form going nuts and hitting the gas pedal and plowing their car through a crowd. You're not going to stop people from poisoning salad bars at Sizzler. You're not going to stop people from releasing anthrax or releasing poisonous gas in a subway. You're not going to stop people from planting pipe bombs.

All of these other things -- health care, society, religion, weapons, medication -- are all elements in the story. So are a million other things. Ultimately, there is nothing that will stop these events.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[Obfuscant]

If you want to stockpile 1000 guns; I think I do as member of this society, have a right to know why.

No, you don't. I don't need to explain to you why I want to exercise my constitutional rights, any more than you need to explain to me why you should be allowed to exercise yours.

Why don't you allow cops to search your house when they ask? Are you hiding something? Why do you need any right to be secure in your person and property unless you've done something wrong? What are you hiding? As a member of this society, I have a right to know why you are invoking the fourth or fifth amendments. Don't I? (Note to readers: that's a rhetorical question intended to make the point that the argument "I have a right to know why you want to..." is specious and patently absurd.)

There is no reason to own many of the guns that are sold,

No reason you understand. Are constitutional rights only valid if you understand why someone wants to exercise them?

And I see absolutely no reason for the conceal carry laws other then

The right of people to defend themselves is a pretty good reason. You don't understand why others use their rights. We get that. Your lack of understanding is really irrelevant to the discussion.

I believe in responsible gun ownership but I don't see how that right is unlimited and unrestricted.

"I don't understand why you want to own a gun" isn't a valid restriction, and there are already quite a number of restrictions that you don't seem to know about. It's hyperbole to claim that gun ownership is "unlimited and unrestricted" just because you don't think they are limited enough to meet your understanding.

No social net

[stanjo74]

Despite the billions the US spends on welfare, there is really no social net in the US society. We have no family or social fabrics either. It's a thin line between lack of social responsibility and hatred of others - the mentally troubled may not see that difference.

Socialized healthcare, for example, could go a long way in giving people the sense that someone cares about them.
The American society is a "jungle, survival of the fittest" society and it has it's price. We, at some point, need to decide if this is how we want to keep going, and if so, accept the loss that comes with it.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[canadian_right]

A columnist at the CBC has a good article on how many Canadians feel about the USA's attitude towards guns and these horrible tragedies.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[PlusFiveTroll]

Yep, good idea, lets ban guns, because no one will ever just stab the fuck out of a classroom. It seems likely that the chinese guy wasn't trying to kill student, because a knife is very deadly if intended to be. Us Americans have a violence problem that is not going to be solved by banning anything. Every time something is banned we just seem to make a bigger more violent black market for it. I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd start with getting rid of the "OMFG it's the fucking end of the world, everyday" news we have to put up with. Hear that message everyday and you are apt to flip out, seriously, why keep on living if it's so bad. You'll get the depressed and insane thinking that they are doing the kids a favor by taking them out of this evil place.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[anagama]

Encryption schemes are great for the present and immediate future, but what about ten years from now? There's no certainty that what is today unbreakable will not be trivial to brute force in a few years time, or some vulnerability will be discovered which renders the encryption worthless.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[PlusFiveTroll]

There is always the chance you fail to destroy yourself and you give it up after the rubber hose beating.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[circletimessquare]

EXACTLY

why do you present links that prove my point?

murderous intent is everywhere, but only in the usa, because of guns, do so many die

answer me this, genius: how many of those 23 injured in china are dead?

please, go: look it up. get educated

i'm waiting for you to post your findings in this thread

guns are obviously the problem, to all of our economic peers who look at the usa like some deranged fool in denial about an obvious problem, to all of us americans with some clarity and intelligence on the subject

opposed as we are, by this quasi-religious cult of the gun in this great country, but obviously fundamentally flawed country, deranged as it is on a subject like guns

Re:cue jokes about RieserFS

[Jason Levine]

Aspergers has ZERO to do with the killer's rampage. I have a son with Asperger's (yes, diagnosed by a doctor and, no, it wasn't an easy process to figure out what was going on with him) and I can tell you that the nature of Asperger's is completely counter to something like this.

First of all, people think Asperger's means a lack of empathy. It doesn't, though. It's a lack of an ability to pick up on social cues. My son can't tell if his endless story about the video game he's playing is boring you or if you are riveted. Communication is 20% words and 80% non-verbal. Aspies have trouble deciphering the latter 80%. Imagine trying to read Slashdot posts/comments with only 1 out of every 5 letters in place. C____ __u ____y __ _n_ __ ___m? O_ _____d ___ __t___a_ __o_ ___ __n____a___n? (i.e. Could you reply to any of them? Or would you withdraw from the conversation?) Aspies might withdraw simply because they don't understand how to respond/interact, but they *WANT* to participate.

In addition, Aspies tend to be over-sensitive to the emotions of others once they are told about them. If you tell an Aspie they they offended you with somthing they did, the Aspie will likely feel awful. They might not know how to "make it better", and might withdraw more for fear of making more mistakes, but don't mistake withdrawal for lack of empathy.

Finally, I've found that Aspies (like my son) tend to be sticklers for the rules. They find comfort in rules and get upset when people violate them. So an Aspie isn't likely to plan something that completely "violates the rules" to the degree that a mass shooting does. (They might not get subtle social cues, but they understand that hurting people is wrong.)

Anyone who tries to link mass shootings (including this one) to Asperger's/Autism is just displaying a vast lack of understanding of what Asperger's/Autism is.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

As would reducing the number of cars on the road reduce drunk driving fatalities. Reducing the number of prescription narcotics would prevent accidental or purposeful overdoses. Cutting off everybody's electricity would reduce world pollution. Just because someone does something bad with something doesn't mean it doesn't have a legitimate use and should be taken away from the people that use it responsibly.

Re:Why physically damage the drive?

[Jason Levine]

Actually, I'd hope that they would do everything possible to reconstruct the lost data. No, he can't be prosecuted, but perhaps a clear picture of what drove him to do this could lead to policies that prevent future tragedies. Otherwise we're left with picking semi-random "things to blame" (guns, untreated mental illness, video games, etc), assigning them to him regardless of any evidence, and trying to "fix" it without knowing just what "fixing it" would entail.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[Macgrrl]

Gun control won't reduce the number of people 'losing their shit' and going berserk. It will however, limit the amount of damage they can do before being contained. It's much harder to murder 20 plus people with a hunting knife before someone steps in and stops you.

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[msauve]

"What, pray tell, is the legitimate use of high capacity magazines? "

Sport and fun. What's the use of a snowboard? Other than sport and fun, they serve no legitimate purpose.

Re:Eheh and his mother was sane?

[ahabswhale]

You are wrong on several counts:

1) This kid had mental issues since birth. He had Aspergers and difficulty dealing with others and was a problem kid his whole life.

2) The mother bought these guns to teach her kid how to shoot so he could learn about responsibility. Talk about the stupidest fucking thing you can think of to teach a mentally ill kid responsibility...

3) It's the mother's responsibility to make sure her mentally ill child does not have access to deadly weapons. You can't blame a nut for their actions when everyone knows he's got major problems. If she felt the need to have guns, she should have properly secured them such that he could not get access to them. (Maybe that should be a law?)

In short, his mom was completely irresponsible. If she weren't dead, I'd say she should be prosecuted (at least for being a complete fucking moron).

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

Gun control won't reduce the number of people 'losing their shit' and going berserk. It will however, limit the amount of damage they can do before being contained. It's much harder to murder 20 plus people with a hunting knife before someone steps in and stops you.

You got the first sentence right, but then you went and blew it with the following sentences.

How could gun control...or even a ban on guns...ever possibly stop a nutcase who won't obey any laws from obtaining a gun? Do you think more regulations, restrictions, or bans will halt the availability? With some 200 million guns already out there?

Heroin and cocaine are illegal, and up till recently, marijuana was too. Didn't seem to stop anyone from obtaining those things. They've pretty much already admitted bans don't and won't work with the current movement of government towards decriminalization of marijuana.

Just as with recreational drug bans and alcohol prohibitions, the people that you'd most want to NOT have them will be the ones that have them and sell them.

Which came first? The nutcase? Or the nutcase getting their hands on a gun? Check the facts. The number of mass murders by gun are actually down. We are in a 40-year low in violent crime.

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States.

And to those who try to characterize the 2nd Amendment right as some sort of "hunter's rights" and thus attempt to justify their desire to severely restrict who may own, and what types of firearms that may be legally owned, to licensed hunters with single-shot rifles and shotguns, you are wrong.

The 2nd Amendment was PRIMARILY about ensuring US citizens could do one thing above and beyond all others; Overthrow the US government by killing _people_. Not Bambi. People. Government people.

Hunting and personal defense are merely nice side-benefits.

The problem is not guns. It's the crazies. The Left battled mightily and won in the '70s and '80s to have mental patients out walking the streets instead of being institutionalized. What the ~fuck~ did you people EXPECT to happen? Hello? McFly?

Now it looks like the Left wants to turn the entire country into a mental institution and all the citizens disarmed and treated as dangerous mental patients rather than admit their screwed-up, blind-ideology-based policies are to blame.

Molon labe.

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

Forgot to include the cite.

The number of violent crimes in the United States dropped significantly last year, to what appeared to be the lowest rate in nearly 40 years, a development that was considered puzzling partly because it ran counter to the prevailing expectation that crime would increase during a recession.

In all regions, the country appears to be safer. The odds of being murdered or robbed are now less than half of what they were in the early 1990s, when violent crime peaked in the United States

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html?_r=0

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[danlip]

I am still totally perplexed as to why rational thinking people could consider a law giving the right to bear arms, written in the days where arms meant sabres, brown bess muskets and the occasional long rifle (half a century before the invention of the Minié ball or rotating bolt) entitles them to buy AR-15 rifles and automatic handguns.

It's clear the intent of the founding fathers was to provide the people with the ability to overthrow the government. If you only allow people to have sabres and muskets in this age that clearly isn't following the intent. Automatic weapons are necessary to even have a chance.

However, I think we should definitely consider whether that is still necessary. Our democracy has had a long history of success and we have resolved many tough issues peacefully. We should repeal the second amendment. That doesn't mean that all guns would be illegal, but it would mean the government has the power to regulate them.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[bmcage]

He is actually not that wrong. In the sense: you need to be clever to obtain an illegal gun. Chances are you will not find it. So if they make big magazines illegal, but normal magazines are still ok, the nutjob will get the smaller magazine, and not go through the troubles of obtaining big. Same if they prohibit semi-automatic, ...

Yes, organized crime will have no problem obtaining those weapons, they have them in Europe too, they just steal them from an army depot, .... But the common nutjob is not in organized crime, and will use the weapons available to him in the most easy fashion. As a consequence, the number of deaths he can cause will be less.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

Of course, in the US, rather than handing them over with barely a grumble it would be You can have it when you pry it form my cold dead fingers. I feel sad for you all.

Don't feel sad for us.

We are citizens, not subjects or slaves to whatever the armed minions of government demand from us.

An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject and a slave to whomever is armed.

All governments, as proven time and again throughout history, have and will ever trend to tyranny, and will never reverse their course but at the threat of armed resistance & rebellion by their citizens.

Love your country, but NEVER trust it's government!

It's full of politicians!

Strat

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[donscarletti]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The intentions were clearly to arm a militia to protect the state from external threats, not to provide the means to overthrow the state itself, I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from, it sounds nice.

Re: Snowboards kill one at a time

[skitchen8]

Bird hunting would be awful hard with a .22. Maybe you're a better shot than I, but I would much prefer a 12 gauge with bird shot. The exact point here is that what is useful to you shouldn't affect what I can and cannot do, my wants and needs may differ. It seems a bit ironic to me that on a site where people are so worried that the government may see words they type in a search engine that they also are so okay with taking an actual constitutional right away.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[BlueStrat]

The 2nd Amendment was PRIMARILY about ensuring US citizens could do one thing above and beyond all others; Overthrow the US government by killing _people_. Not Bambi. People. Government people.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's not about overthrowing the government, dumbass, it's about defending it.

How about we ask one of the guys who WROTE THE THING!?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788.

Looks like you're completely and utterly wrong, "dumbass", since you enjoy being so juvenile.

I didn't know the grade-schoolers got out on Christmas holiday so early.

Here's another quote to grow on.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ⦠from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ⦠the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference â" they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

Here, maybe Penn & Teller can help you out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs

Strat

Re: Jack Thompson is already on the case

[skitchen8]

Semi-automatic rifle, automatic weapons are already illegal to own. The rest of your comment doesn't get credibility when you don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Automatic weapons would probably be harder to kill people with, unless you have experience with them your aim lasts for exactly one round and then you are shooting at the ceiling/sky.

Re:Jack Thompson is already on the case

[sunsurfandsand]

The thing is, do you really want someone telling you what gun is appropriate for you to own?

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will spray our children, our relatives, our friends, or our fellow citizens with bullets.

How much alcohol can you own?

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will drink herself insensible and crash her fucking SUV head-on into any more of my friends' cars.

If so, where do you draw the line?

There is no "line". The slippery slope argument, as you present it, is nonsense. We can say "No, you can't have an assault weapon," without saying "No, you can't own all the liquor you can afford." We can say "No, you can't drink and drive," without saying "No, you can't buy an SUV."

See, here's how it works in civilized societies: we weigh the costs and benefits of particular freedoms and responsibilities. We agree, as best we can, after consideration and argument, what we should allow and what we shouldn't. For example: the benefit to gun nuts of owning assault weapons is exceedingly low in comparison to the cost to parents whose children are slaughtered. The benefit to drunkards of guzzling all the liquor they can hold and then going for a spin is exceedingly small in comparison to the cost to society. Remember society? That's US...you, and me, and all our friends, and all theirs...

As it is clear that if considerations were limited to the costs and benefits mentioned in my examples, then owning assault weapons would be prohibited, just as drunk driving is. Why then isn't it? I speculate it is because the folks who make a killing by selling assault weapons spend a lot of that money on advertising and PR to get folks like you to think the way you do. They want you to imagine that if they can't sell their deadly wares that will somehow diminish your freedom. Now that the liquor industry has given up fighting against drunk driving laws, are you less free? I'm not.