Don’t Worry: When Seconds Count, the Cops Are Only Minutes Away

…And what do you want to bet that when it’s all said and done with the Connecticut School Shooting, just as in the VaTech shooting and others, the pigs end up being superfluous because the gunman himself did their job?

In other words, the pigs are entirely irrelevant; there, merely to stand in front of cameras pretending relevance by stern-and-solemn-face, waxing on about the “importance” of their “ongoing investigation.”

Pigs, when they’re not harassing you in the high risk job of issuing traffic citations—because that’s actually safe—are mere janitors in nearly all situations where it’s not safe.

And now, elementary school children—5-10 sweet years old—are caught in a crossfire, where Democrats and their sheltered urban commie friends are afraid of guns because they don’t understand them…just like rural Republicans are afraid of gays for the same reason. Everyone is disarmed and defenseless because everyone’s afraid—like a pool of slime seeking the lowest and darkest places. …And the only ones not afraid are the predators; not afraid of guns, or, the consequences of their predatory use.

Call 911, morons.

The pigs are nowhere to be seen at the exact time it’s most crucial and, in the fantasy world of USMA—United States of Moron America—it’s actually what they believe they’re getting—courageous protection—in spite of nearly all evidence going to the contrary. In terms of the pigs: virtually everyone else in any real situation is as defenseless as a cockroach at a tap-dance festival. The pigs almost always utterly fail in the situations that make up the only rational justification for having them.

It’s not remotely crazy to finally ask the question: would we be far better off with zero pigs, 100% of the time, 100% of everywhere? I think the answer is an obvious yes. Where they’re not more corrupt than Vito Corleone running a civic Bingo parlor, they’re a big drain on society, a fucking eyesore, and a general pain in the ass.

…I live in a country of so many abject morons, well better than 50%, and counting—tipping point time, given the vote. You wait and see. Those morons—and so many of the Europeans, where it’s been fashionable to be a disarmed, defenseless pussy for decades—will call for further disarming and pussification of the already defenseless.

In the meantime, while by no means a gun nut, I do take my own responsibility seriously—because the pigs are a bunch of fucking jody-boy wankers who I wouldn’t trust to fetch my mail.

303950 10150372277291137 1922776458 n

Three of those belong to my neighbor, with whom I always got along fine before they moved. It’s actually quite nice to know your neighbor is well armed and competent with their use. That’s how I grew up. Sure glad it wasn’t around a buch of hand-wringing pussy boys, or worse, Euros guys—most of whom would sooner hold a stiff guy’s cock than fire a real gun.

Get a gun. Learn how to use it and go have fun sometimes. One handed practice:

It’s pretty elementary. Let every school teacher who’s willing, take requisite training and continuing qualification, and carry right out there in front of everyone.

It’ll probably have the more important long-run unintended consequence of solving a lot of other fucked up shit in public schools.

Now go fuck off, America, Land of the Increasingly Fearful Pussies. And Western Europe? Just sit down and shut up. You’re dismissed; disqualified.

Calling 911 ought to be your backup plan.

Update: Here’s what I wrote about the Jody Boys in 2007, VaTech.

I don’t know about you, but I have nothing but a deep and profound loathing for that whole cop-scene looping continuously on the news surrounding the Virginia Tech mass murder. I hadn’t a chance to watch any TV while things were unfolding yesterday, but I flipped around the dial last evening and was just appalled by the display. Don’t know I could put it any better than Billy:

…where all the video shows us these slug-ass cops running to & fro with all their fine army-man wannabe costuming.

Bunch ‘a pussies. Losers.

You got that, Blacksburg Police Department, County Sheriff, SWAT, BATF, and all the rest of you dipshits who got all dressed up so’s you could parade your worthless carcasses around the TEEVEE all day looking all toughass?

You’re putrid and disgusting. Every one of you.

Actually, you’re worse than worthless. I could be grudgingly satisfied — or at least resigned — with worthless. But what you guys do is actively perpetuate the fraud — you get that: fraud — that honest and peaceful people are safe around you — that you’ll protect them; when in point of observable fact, you’re either preening your costumed candy asses in front of the TEEVEE completely out of harm’s way, or else you’re busting down the doors of unarmed and peaceful people where you know you’re not going to face any serious armed opposition.

Anyone with any sense at all sees completely through this charade. You know what? Here’s how worthless you are; you, with your dozens upon dozens of “highly trained officers,” G.I. Joe dress-up, assault vehicles, and dogs sniffing who knows what: a 100-lb freshman girl with a decent weapon in her backpack and a bit of nerve would have easily put you all to shame.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Dan Linehan on December 14, 2012 at 14:23

    Yep, I feel the same way. I know it’s not a popular opinion, but there’s no way a gunman should be able to storm the administrative office of ANY school without some pushback.

    People are shocked, SHOCKED, that this could happen, but school shootings are nothing new. We have guards protecting valuables for a reason — what’s more valuable than a room full of innocent children?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 14:23


      You get a 1-year dispensation on any disagreement we may have.

  2. metjush on December 14, 2012 at 14:25

    Well, maybe. Ok, I mean, I’m not for getting rid of the 2nd amendment or something, neither will I advocate having more cops on the streets, but I think you yourself have identified one major problem with US gun laws in the article – morons:
    “I live in a country of so many abject morons, well better than 50%, and counting”
    Morons are a problem on their own, but it’s when you give morons guns that things get nasty. Because yeah, you have your guns at home, for protection, you know how to use it, but you are also not a moron. A moron, believing that the 2nd amendment means he can shoot anyone in the face when they disagree with him, grabs the first gun he sees, doesn’t even know how to properly use it, and goes on a rampage, for some reason. There is always a reason for a moron.
    I don’t know where we go from here. I don’t want to ban guns, but there has been so many gun tragedies in the past year that it just can’t stay the way it is…

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 14:31

      Well I’m generally referring to moron in the abstract, i.e., public policy.

      I take all things contextually. I’ve only known one single person out of of hundreds of gun owners in my life where I thought it might be better if he didn’t have it. And still, he never hurt himself or anyone else with it.

      Or, to state it another way, a moron in the context I’m writing of might be crack at remodeling your house or fixing your car.

      It’s the weird morons I worry about.

    • rob on December 14, 2012 at 16:28

      The shooters are not morons, the Denver shooter in all probability had a genius level IQ, they are crazy.

      Bit difference between stupid and crazy.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:48

      That’s intellectualism. Yea, Hitler was a “genius.”

      What does it really mean to say someone’s a genius but kills people for whatever reason? Uh, I like moron.

      It’s kinda like I don’l make intellectualist distinctions between socialism and communism. Just a bunch of commies.

  3. Alex Saveski on December 14, 2012 at 14:42

    The first question that should be asked after these thing happen: was he on any psychiatric drugs?(

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 15:03

      I don’t know. If prescribed, that might be an interesting fact.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:26

      “You have to be pretty insane to kill your family and a room full of 5 year olds. Would you rather such people not be on meds?”

      The quintessential problem is that we’re human animals who—billions of us—have the potential to do great damage before any sort of officialdom can come to the scene and pretend they’re in charge and everything is OK.

      It is an observable fact: nobody is going to protect you but you. Not really.

      Now, you have two options. 1) Take your chances (my position away from home). 2) At home, be well trained in the use of firearms, because you’re home a lot, you sleep there, etc (my position at home).

      If we had legal concealed carry here in CA, I would be overjoyed to carry virtually everywhere and I would gladly get into the thick of things if ever called for.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 17:58

      I may have addressed this in another comment but YES. We are social animals. Some hunt, some gather, some sharpen their spears.

      So absolutely. The problem is not anything like everyone should have a gun. The problem is that there are millions of competent souls who would love the feeling of heading out, concealed carry (you don’t want to be a target), and 999 times out of 1000, nothing happens.

      I love fully automatic, by the way.

      It’s such a kick to fire them. I imagine that the resistance to them vs those who’ve fired them is a 1-1 inverse correspondence.

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:00

      Richard: It’s actually quite nice to know your neighbor is well armed and competent with their use.

      {sigh} In my case, *I* am the well-armed and competent neighbor… Okay. {shrug} So, it’s my job in the neighborhood.

      Woo: not everyone is okay or comfortable or motivated to learn how to use fire arms and carry them.

      Of course not — so let those of us who ARE, do so! (i.e., stop getting in the way of folks who are competent and willing — and well armed)! The mere fact that bad guys wouldn’t know if this-or-that person in their field-of-targets were armed means they’d be (however slightly) less likely to act out. After WWII, the Japanese said one reason they did NOT try to invade California was the ‘crazy gun nuts’ that Americans were perceived to be. The reason no ‘crazy person’ ever comes into a cop-bar to try a shoot-‘m-up is they know for damned-sure the guys in there drinking are likely to be armed. The reason they DO go to an elementary school is they’re damned-sure NO ONE there will be armed!

      I haven’t seen any of the news of this latest shooting (I try to keep my brain chemicals free of the hysteria of the media; it doesn’t help me and it doesn’t help anyone else to rile my primate brain up with non-local dangers). But my guess is, as usual, if ANY competent adult in the area had been armed, this would not have gone on as long as it did and not as many folks would have been shot. (And dammit! Disarming law-abiding folks will NOT stop this sort of thing!)

      Woo: I agree on bans of semi-automatic weapons and military gear, why would any person need that if they had good intentions?

      Um… cause the guys with bad intentions can get them? (Or maybe just cause they’re fun?) (Are you even aware, that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is ILLEGAL for states to require criminals who are legally not allowed to own guns to register them (how’s that for lawyerly insanity!?) because that would be self-incrimination?! Are you aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have NO legal responsibility to protect any one of us!? Protection of individuals is NOT their job. But, yeah, by all means — call the cops for help! Good luck with that!)

      Woo: The idea that we should all be totally responsible for our own protection , i.e. carrying a gun, eh it seems ignorant of the fact that we are all different and some of us are not the fighting kind. Cripples in wheelchairs – should they be responsible to be armed? Should we reasonably expect a 90 year old to competently fend off an attacker?

      “Should be” responsible? Woo, we ARE totally responsible for our own protection! There IS no one else! (Well, if we were a better-armed society, there would be armed folks in your vicinity who would try to protect you… unless you were at a school where they aren’t allowed to be!)

      I’ll make you a deal! If YOU don’t want to carry a gun? Don’t. But you (and the rest of this pathological society) stay the hell out of whether or not *I* can carry — anytime, anywhere. I WILL protect you, even if you hate guns. And how do you suggest that cripple in a wheelchair protect him or her self? Oh, right, call the cops… What did Richard call this entry?

      And that 90-yr-old?! The ONLY chance s/he has of competently fending off an attacker is WITH A GUN!!

      What do you suggest those folks who NEED protection DO!? Just give up and die?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 09:23

      Over the years I’ve always asked those either anti-gun, afraid of guns, etc. to go ahead then and post a “This is a Gun Free Zone” sign on their front door.

      None are willing, of course, for obvious and telling reasons.

    • neal matheson on December 16, 2012 at 00:27

      “I agree on bans of semi-automatic weapons and military gearI agree on bans of semi-automatic weapons and military gear”
      Isn’t one of the reasons for the second ammendmend to have a populace free from the tyranny of the state? I would have thought military gear would be more constitutional than hand guns.

    • Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 10:01

      To the extent that you are entirely reliant on other people for protection, you have already given up and died. Bears don’t respond to laws against mauling other animals. Some criminals will not respond to laws aimed to prevent violence. The only thing these people respond to is deadly force, and the police cannot be there babysitting every defenceless person every moment of his (or her) life. They aren’t there now. They will never be there. No legislation is going to make it so. No amount of praying to the gods of hope, change, revolution, good sense, or whatever.

    • v on December 16, 2012 at 06:41

      get two dobermans and have multiple escape routes and have a weapon that is not automatic or semi-automatic. we don’t need those. i have one doberman, but two are definitely better.

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:32

      WTF would ban semi-autos? They don’t fire any faster than a single-action revolver from the 19th century. WTF does “military gear” mean?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 22:21


      Yes, I have a .38 revolver (snub nose) that used to sit on my grandmother’s bedside table when I was a kid.

      The only reason I didn’t bring up this point that ignorant people don’t even know is that they’ll come back and say 8 have only 6 shots instead of 10 or 12.

      But yes, in practical terms, a revolver is a semi automatic, the only difference being they the reload is powered by your finger pull instead of the expelled gas of the previously fired round.

    • Alex S. on December 17, 2012 at 09:11

      “semi-automatic weapons should be limited to “groups” and “organizations” like the government, like bands of people who have been authorized and proven not to be insane groups of people”

      Governments have used their weapons to kill TWO HUNDRED MILLION innocent people during the 20th century alone and those are the people you consider sane!!

      “Cripples in wheelchairs – should they be responsible to be armed? Should we reasonably expect a 90 year old to competently fend off an attacker? ”

      Those are exactly the people you would be hurting by banning guns! Those are the people whose frailty demands a firearm for self-defense. Would you rather they used their superior brawn to overwhelm their attacker? Would you rather these people were beaten, raped, or killed?:

    • Alex S. on December 19, 2012 at 09:20

      Granny shooting machine gun in a wheelchair:–K3X6rptE4

    • Alex S. on December 14, 2012 at 16:57

      I don’t know the answers. I just think it would be interesting to know if drugs that are “documented to induce violence, mania, psychosis, aggression, hostility and homicide” are being used by the people committing these shocking acts. There is a surprising correlation between psychiatric drug use and violence that I think needs to be studied. It appears that in some cases, they may be making a bad situation much, much worse. I think there is ample evidence to justify asking these questions.

      I would rather people first tried dietary and lifestyle changes and/or 5-HTP supplementation before resorting to prescription SSRIs.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 17:14

      I suppose it’s more profitable to let everyone on the lose, feed them drugs. You’ve slashed most overhead, and you’ll get paid by someone fro the scrip.

      Must more profitable than on the old days where crazies were left to family or whatever charity they could find, and truly dangerous people were just locked up.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 17:43


      So we didn’t get rid of you last thread? 🙂

      Fine, then.

      Yea, one might think for a second, that even if obesity is all about the macros and calories, that since we do have to subsist on food, that perhaps brain function might be a factor and, since we’re Fat Heads, much of it omegas, that dietary fat is important?

      The mind reels. Well, minds fed with proper nutrients.

      …One might consider that mental stability or instability might be a precursor to physical problems like obesity. Of course, anorexia is the well established other side of the coin.

      By any chance, have you read the book by Julia Ross, Mood Cure? She had important success with chemical addiction by targeting supplementation of specific amino acids. I found it interesting.

    • Alex S. on December 14, 2012 at 17:48

      I think we’re in agreement regarding pharmacological interventions. I did not deny the existence of brain diseases. I think that in those cases where the root cause of the dysfunction is a nutrient deficiency, as you alluded to, it’s obviously preferable to correct that deficiency than to add a pharmaceutical whose safety record and efficacy is suspect.

      It’s not a question of less or more psych intervention. It’s what is the nature of the psych intervention and is it addressing the root cause when that cause can be discerned.

      For the record, I’m not religious. You can form your own opinion regarding ignorance.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 18:17

      My position is simple.

      Learn (relearn) how to protect yourself. Never trust a 3-digit number or institution to do so because no matter how well intentioned, they cannot.

      I leave the hand wringing over deciding who’s a real danger to others or just a weirdo on a different tip than others, because in the end, I don’t really care.

      Can I be honest? I don’t really care. I merely salute those who, for some reason that escapes me, do. Fine. No quarrel.

    • Alex S. on December 19, 2012 at 09:25

      “If people die on chemotherapy it doesn’t mean chemotherapy drugs cause cancer/death.”

      “You have to be pretty insane to kill your family and a room full of 5 year olds. Would you rather such people not be on meds?”

      These shooters didn’t need less psych intervention, they needed much more.”

      If the standard of care is making the situation worse, then yes, less intervention is needed. If a kid is initially depressed, but following treatment is depressed, suicidal, and homicidal, I’d say they’re better off with less treatment. In the case of chemotherapy, see Dr. Thomas Seyfried’s presentation at AHS12.

  4. Sean C on December 14, 2012 at 14:43

    I agree 100%. Just as I think fire departments should go back to being 100% voluntary. What’s missing is a sense of community. We hand our tithes to the government and expect all aspects of life to be taken care of.

    Can’t wait for the comments to unfold. Who will be the first to call for more money being funneled into mental hospitals? Who will be the first to call for complete abolishment of firearms for non-military and non-police piggys?

    grabbing popcorn…I’ll be back in a few

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 15:04

      Sean C. Make it a small one. I suspect this entry won’t get tons of comments.

      I may be wrong. We’ll see.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 18:05


      Unless you want to go down a similar road as before, please do a little research on volunteer firefighting, around in the US since about 75 years before the revolution, i.e., circa 1700.

      Just saying. You weren’t born yesterday and people had great concern about fires in the early 1700s with populations more dense, and lighting largely from candles.

    • Fftim on December 17, 2012 at 15:36

      Building construction in the 1700 was mostly heavy wood frame construction. Today’s light weight engineered wood construction with room contents made from petro chemicals burn at a much faster rate. See UL study on heirloom construction vs modern construction. Todays fires in a free burning state double in size every 17 seconds.

      Todays Fire departments are cross trained as EMTs no to mention hazmat,confined space rescue, rope rescue and many other areas

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:06

      Sean C: We hand our tithes to the government

      Tithes?! Tithes?! Those are VOLUNTARY gifts intended to take care of others!! This government STEALS FROM ME AT GUNPOINT and then doesn’t bother to take care of what *I* want handled! Please, pick your terms more accurately!

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:10

      And lots of those ‘fire trucks rushing out’ all the time are for idiotic things — people calling them out for …yes… treed cats; and for some idiotic reason, they now send fire trucks WITH ambulances… no matter the call, a fire truck appears where it’s not possibly needed. E.g., my husband’s death from heart attack — whatinthehell did I need a LADDER truck to show up for!? A cop car, yes, there might have been traffic to manage (cul-de-sac, so there wasn’t). Ambulance, well obviously, that’s what I called for. (alas, too late, I found him a couple hours after he had died… {sigh}) But a ladder truck!? Woo, go next door and get to know the guys — see what they’re rushing out on. You’ll be surprised!

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:33

      Fairbanks AK has an all-volunteer Fire Department. One of my cousins-in-law was a volunteer fireman in Estes Park, CO, for years.

  5. Chris on December 14, 2012 at 15:35

    First, you might consider who would actually want to be a cop. You?

    Second, most civilized people would like a society where schools don’t need armed guards, or armed teachers. That’s the way it is in most of the world; I’ve been there, almost everywhere.

    There are certainly many cops and politicians who are morons. But I doubt any are as moronic as the author of this post.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:03

      “First, you might consider who would actually want to be a cop. You?”

      Right. That’s a nice lede for those who want to ultimately agree with the whole point you want to make and bothered to comment on. Since only the last sentence is relevant and you have no ability to really make the point…nice lede.

      “most civilized people would like a society”

      Now the beg the question paragraph (among a handful of other logical fallacies—but I’m loath to toss pearls before swine).

      Most everyone wants to have a decent society. We’re social animals, and consternation and violence is costly and heart cooling.

      “But I doubt”

      Who cares what you confirm or doubt?

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:36

      You live in the world you have, not the one you want. Where are these schools w/out armed guards? Europe? Where every airport has had guards w/ full-auto weapons for decades? Germany? Where Jewish CEMETARIES have 24/7 police sentries armed w/ H&K MP5s? Oh, I know: NORWAY. Where not even the police are armed, which made Mr. Brevik oh so grateful. Or Scotland? Ever heard of a little town called “Dunblane”?

    • Raynote on December 20, 2012 at 11:12

      And don’t forget France where we had a school shooting in Toulouse last spring: 3 children and one teacher killed.

  6. CW on December 14, 2012 at 15:37

    I don’t think we need to put money in mental health hospitals, but there is a point where we should be refusing guns to the mentally ill. It’s not like some of these people didn’t already have a known history of illness.

    Other than that, not nearly enough responsible people have guns. Open carry by school staff actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me. It’s a shame it will never come up.

    I was fairly young at the time, but my grandmother was a librarian at Columbine during the shooting, and I remember asking my parents why no one at the school had a gun to do anything to stop these guys.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:05

      “I remember asking my parents why no one at the school had a gun to do anything to stop these guys.”

      Because they had phones.

      They called 911, the great fantastical delusion.

    • rob on December 14, 2012 at 16:31

      Who gets to decide who is “mentally ill” and can’t own a gun? It’s not like there is a “State Directory Of Mentally Ill People.”

      In all probability I would conclude that you are mentally ill if we got to know each other, do you really want to cede that kind of authority to me?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:52

      “Who gets to decide who is “mentally ill” and can’t own a gun? It’s not like there is a “State Directory Of Mentally Ill People.””

      Of course, and this is where Great Society breaks down, where the real point of it is to secede your authority and capacities so that those on the public dole can claim credit in the rare circumstance when really bad shit goes right, act like they’re essential when really irrelevant and everything has gone wrong.

    • CW on December 14, 2012 at 17:07

      It is a little too tinfoil hat for me to think that we can’t trust anyone with any qualifications to say someone like James Holmes probably shouldn’t have been in possession of a gun. Which isn’t to say we need to line up to get our forehead stamped ‘defective’ or ‘state approved’ by some Orwellian board.
      I just refuse to accept though that the best way for us to handle any situation like this is to say, “Well, his parents and people around him knew he was fucked up in the head….but what are you gonna do? Just have to hope you shoot first.”

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 17:22

      CW, not sure I totally understand your point.

      What I do clearly understand is that my own safety and security is my own responsibility and affair.

      I also would love to protect others, too, because I really don’t begrudge people who just can’t seem to muster it. I have blood lust, though, which is to say that I love to see the blood of a predator pooling.

      You don’t really get one without the other. There are millions of competent marksmen in America, men and women, who could be p all scenes at all times.

      But the pig’s jobs as janitors, cleaning up the mess I the aftermath is so much more important.

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:13

      “I have blood lust…”

      And it’s one of your most attractive traits, Richard! {wink}

    • rob on December 15, 2012 at 06:56

      Imo all humans of substantially-above average intelligence are mentally ill, see Kurt Vonnegut, Galapagos.

      /Kurt himself suffered from depression
      //Do you really want your doctor informing on you to the police authorities?

  7. Gordon Shannon on December 14, 2012 at 15:42

    So many more scenes in the clown show. Genuine sentiments – fear, disgust, confusion – are once again being expressed through ritualized and *dictated* media. Hours upon hours of footage of the scene. Expressions of anger, hurt, consolation. Finger-pointing by all sides, coupled with fashionable *reticence* to point fingers accompanied by implicit blame of those who point fingers. All symptoms of a society of, as you say, morons.

    Here’s what I know. Some kid killed other kids. At some point, this kid was putting out signs, to someone, be it his parents, friends, teachers, or whoever, that he was in need, that he was suffering, that he was *unhealthy*. And all those people ignored him. And thus, through an unfortunate and winding road of misery, he got to this point. And rather than blame his *parents* for raising him the way they did, blaming his *teachers* for failing to provide him with an example of reason and an avenue to rational self-awareness, and his *friends* for failing to support him, guns are blamed, liberals/conservatives/libertarians are blamed, video games are blamed, and the TV is filled with scenes directed to *soothing* the grieving and confused masses.

    His *immediate community* dropped the ball. So many mechanisms and institutions took part in the destruction of his *natural* support and education network, and he suffered, and now others suffer.

    And once again I can come *here* to see penetrating and rational analysis. Kudos. And said *immediate community* should feel ashamed of itself tonight. *They* let this innocent kid become the sort of person who could do *this* to himself and to other innocent kids.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:19

      +1 Gordon.

      While anything can always happen, perhaps observe the people around you and take direct or indirect action when something smells off? Indeed.

      Calling 911 ought always be but a mere backup plan.

  8. Todd on December 15, 2012 at 06:52

    A gun ban, huh?

    Because it’s working so well in Australia:

    Quite frankly, I’m disgusted by the vultures (media) circling over the dead. What good comes out of promoting these tragedies to this extent? The media laps this up and begs for more, as their dicks grow harder by the minute. It’s shocking and great television, you know. Let’s stay glued in front of the telelvision or computer instead of interacting with other humans in any sort of meaningful, productive way. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be talked about (or watching t.v. or computers are bad), but it seems like free advertising to the other sickos who are capable of such a horrific act.

    Look at the indigenous photos Richard posted on his anarchy series. Kind of tells it all, doesn’t it? Close-knite community. One whiff of something off in a person in one of those groups and the group will be sure to address the issue. We completely lack that “close-knittedness” in our society. That’s a large part of the problem. Not guns.

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:38

      Tood: “What good comes out of promoting these tragedies to this extent?”

      Why, advertisement sales, Todd! Income for the owners of the media outlets that are pumping this story just as hard as they can! This is why your local newscasters, trying to ‘get in on the money’ are in your local school interviewing folks who have nothing whatsoever to do with this story!

      It may be that the news media are not actually “hoping” for another sicko to be moved to action by all the ‘noise’ — but they’d sure benefit if one did!!

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 09:16

      Excellent, Todd. Let’s get that quoted right in here for the record.

      Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

      – In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

      – Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

      – Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

      Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

      – Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.

      – During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.

      – Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.

      – Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

      – At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

      – Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

      While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.


      This is funny, though: “….acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime.”

      And then they go on to demonstrate the exact opposite. I’d call that a huge “impact,” just not of the sort they were looking for.

  9. pzo on December 14, 2012 at 16:21

    “America, Land of the Increasingly Fearful Pussies”

    The fearful pussies are the ones buying weapons for no good reason. Ammunition was in short supply after Obama’s 2008 victory for months. “OBAMA’S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!” Four years, later, what??? Nothing. Fear.

    The NRA has become a domestic terrorist organization. If those were brown men in that organization, they would have been disbanded decades ago.

    “Mental health” and “education”…….gimme a break. The recent mall shooter had zero symptoms of his project. “Sweet and warm.” To say nothing of funding.

    I’m not against guns. I’m not against hunting or recreation with firearms. But with anyone able to get guns, we need to have some reasonable controls. Why do we need 100 round magazines, just for one easy target? (Pun intended.) Because we gotta be prepared for Obama, the black helicopters, and the the blue helmeted UN army, right?

    “Funny” how rare these events are in other countries that lack our culture of violence and an NRA.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:39

      “The fearful pussies are the ones buying weapons for no good reason.”

      I’ve always thought they were pretty. Loved the mechanical. The action. The bang. Fresh venison liver.

      I loved my grandfather’s gun cabinet. I loved my mom’s cousin’s house. They were Reno pawn brokers (the major shop in town) and had 2 full walls of their 30×30 ft entertainment room encased with glass, hundreds of beautiful guns.

      When you say “for no good reason” I already know everything I need to know about you in this, or any issue.

      You have decided what’s good reason for all, you are ignorant of most reasons for most individuals, so you’re dismissed. Just another tard who would love to run your life because he knows what’s best.

    • pzo on December 14, 2012 at 19:45

      No, Richard, I’m not so easily dismissed. Except, perhaps, by intellectual midgets. And, frankly, within your forte, diet and lifestyle, I respect your perspective and inquiries in those categories, whether I agree with them or not. Reader since 2009.

      You and I went to schools without one slight thought about metal detectors and security. And yet, we were safe. Why? Because we, as a society, did not tolerate what is now tolerated.

      I have almost as much probability of dying at the hands of a gun toting violent person (generally men) as dying in a traffic accident. That’s fucking amazing, considering how many people are in cars doing what needs to be done vs. gun deaths.

      Your are a big fan of anarchy and minimal government “interference.” For your ideology to work, doesn’t it take people taking responsibility? And if they don’t have it, what? “Gee, so sorry Mrs. Smith that your daughter died. But you know, the Second Amendment made her death worth it.”

      OK Corral, bring it on.


    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 20:44

      “No, Richard, I’m not so easily dismissed”

      Excellent. My kinda guy. Thanks for your qualifications.

      Still, it ought to be obvious that the market for guns in America relies upon responsible use.

      Yea, traffic accidents. People engage in behavior every single day with far greater chance of being one involved in a mass shooting.

      My essential and fundamental point is that just as with an accident of getting wrapped up in a car or a number of other things people die of every day, everyone is on their own. You can pray to 911 or to your omnipotent fantasy in the aftermath, dropping context that your fantasy is omnipotent.

      But there’s really only one sure thing: if you see to your own defense responsibly and competently, best you can, that is your best shot at surviving something like this, maybe even helping some others.

      Nobody will ever keep evil people from guns, knives, poison or whatever they decide to do to wreak havoc. Whether one prays to 911 or a fantasy, the only moderately effective defense is to understand the foregoing is all bullshit–911 is a backup plan and prayer is for those pretending–and see to things yourself.

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:39

      You went to schools w/out metal detectors because you were rich & privileged. There were plenty of school shootings in the 1980s, but they were at “inner-city” (i.e., black) schools, so no one cared. I had friends who taught at them, went to them, etc. I once met a guy who’d just graduated from Richmond high school in CA. He said the thing that made him happiest about graduating was that he didn’t have to carry a gun every day anymore.

    • Joshua on December 17, 2012 at 11:43

      I doubt that YOU personally have nearly the likelihood of being shot as being in a car wreck. Most of the people who are killed by guns are engaged in illegal activities-i.e. drugs trade.

      What if those activities were no longer illegal? I don’t see a whole lot of people getting shot in the alcohol trade. Certainly not as many as were shot in the 20s.

      There are two kinds of freedom – the freedom from responsibility and the freedom to determine your own destiny.

      You know where guns are banned? Schools. If I was a nutjob who wanted to kill a bunch of people, I’d start at a school – damn near a guarantee that nobody’s gonna be shooting back. There is an argument that this tragedy is a consequence of the 2nd amendment not being honored enough. Schools, being public property, should not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

      The 2nd amendment didn’t require the death of those children. Those deaths are not a price being paid for freedom – they are consequence of other things. Mostly the consequence of somebody going batshit crazy. 22 kids were stabbed & slashed in China on the same day this happened in the US. That’s no more a good reason to ban knives than this is to ban guns.

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:21

      “The recent mall shooter had zero symptoms of his project. “Sweet and warm.””

      Except his ex-girlfriend (sign?) said he had just sold off EVERY SINGLE THING he owned (sign) and planned to move away to Hawai’i (sign) for no apparent reason (sign?)

      I DO wonder if this kid was on the anti-psychotic drugs that the Columbine shooters were, and that kid in Kentucky from a few years ago was and and and… HUGE trail through these shootings, and they seem to point at Big Pharma…. Anyone looking?! Nope.

      Oh, and “rare” in other countries?! Yeah, let’s take a look at Britain, where just about NO ONE (well, except all the criminals, who can get them easily) has a gun… HUGE numbers of “hot” home robberies (where folks are HOME when the robbers break in — cause the bad guys have no fear of being shot!), as against here, where ‘cold’ robbery is the usual pattern. There’s no ‘lack of violence” in Britain (or elsewhere in Europe) — just a lack of ability to protect one’s self!

  10. rob on December 14, 2012 at 16:37

    In a nation of 300,000,000 people this sort of thing is going to happen every so often.

    I don’t have cable TV so I’ll probably have forgotten about it by 7:30 am tomorrow, those of you who can’t break away from the television, well the bad news is you won’t get to forget about it till next week cause they will be covering it 24/7 for several days, it is a Godsend to CNN.

  11. Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 16:55

    “it is a Godsend to CNN”

    Of course. Don’t you know that the private companies who make profits from ad revenue, bolstered by just this sort of thing are of a special, pure, noble, dispensed category?

    They actually hate doing it. It’s not about the money or attention.

    You have a RIGHT TO KNOW and the MSM is totally moral before anything. 🙂

  12. Shelley on December 14, 2012 at 17:31

    Case in point … I am More fearful of those who will claim to protect me than I am fearful of the predators around me. My young boys will be opening a compound bow and rifle scope for Christmas purchased a while ago and they will have a great time with them. They are also taught every day about the dangers of antidepressants and Ritalin, it will be interesting to see if this killer was on one or both.

    • Shelley on December 14, 2012 at 17:50

      And Florida has exceeded 1million concealed licenses and applications; two of which live in my house.

    • Shelley on December 14, 2012 at 17:52

      Sad thing is weapons are not allowed in schools so that is some easy picking for the criminal.

    • Dave on December 15, 2012 at 06:53

      Funny how the laws didn’t stop the perp, but they do generally stop the law abiding people. However, being responsible (for the safety of yourself and yours) means you make choices about whether or not to break the law or at least where you place your business.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 18:29

      “I am More fearful of those who will claim to protect me than I am fearful of the predators around me.”

      The most powerful person for most Americans, average folk going about there lives, is not the President. It’s that cop. If he wants to, he can make your life a living hell that will take years and everything you’ve ever saved to get it behind you.

      I steer clear of them as much as possible.

  13. Andrew Ryan on December 14, 2012 at 17:53

    Is there blood in the streets? Of course. Have some chosen to destroy themselves and others with careless weapon wielding? Undeniable. But I will make no proclamations, I will dictate no laws. The Great Chain moves slowly, but with wisdom. It is our impatience that invites in the Parasite of big government. And once you’ve invited it in, it will never stop feeding on the body of the city.

    • Gordon Shannon on December 14, 2012 at 19:32


    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 19:44

      Yea, it was good. I was waiting to see a citation that never came.

    • Gordon Shannon on December 15, 2012 at 07:30

      Yeah, well people can google. Good, if misguided game.

  14. bill on December 14, 2012 at 19:36

    Interesting viewpoint.

  15. lolo on December 14, 2012 at 19:40

    ” get guns and learn how to protect yourself. its fun” yes because that idea worked just fine for the mother. she got a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and a 223-caliber rifle…

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 19:46


      Suppose you go out and buy an airplane.


    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:40

      Those guns wouldn’t have killed anyone if Mom had been carrying them at the time.

  16. bill on December 14, 2012 at 19:47

    When I think of cops at their best I think of New York’s finest running towards the Two Towers on 9/11 while everyone else ran for their lives. I am sure some of them are pigs but they weren’t pigs that day. I don’t think packing a sidearm would have saved us on that day.
    I wonder why these mass shootings happen in America so much? Why don’t they happen in Canada, England, Japan, Germany, France on a regular basis. Is this our price for freedom? Did those little children give their lives for our second admendment rights? Are they heros too?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 14, 2012 at 20:52

      It’s a bad question, bill.

      Those weren’t bullets flying, aimed. They had no idea the point of the attack was to collapse the buildings. They thought they were dealing with a building on fire.

      How many died of smoke inhalation.

      As to the rest of it, all the assholes left Europe, kicked George’s ass and lifted a middle finger. American assholes then had to go back twice to save all those nice people who can’t seem to see to their own defense.

      I can at least understand the Fench. The food and women are seductive. What’s Britain’s excuse?

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:25

      Britain killed off all their *men* in those two wars… All they have left are weenies, fops, and foreigners.

    • neal matheson on December 16, 2012 at 00:40

      fuck off elenor

    • neal matheson on December 16, 2012 at 00:41

      there have been plenty of mass shootings in Britain sadly.

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:41

      They do happen outside America – more. They just get more publicity in America.

  17. G on December 15, 2012 at 01:21

    While U prats pretend intelligence and play politic, its forgotten that those little kids are dead just because they woke up in an armed America. FACT

    Land of the scared little individual. I’d prescribe culture through travelbut that is an obsurd idea to U hill folk right. Oh wait , U once went to florida. Winners

    • lame lame lame on December 15, 2012 at 01:49

      Well said G. Wake up in America, get shot for no damn reason. The idiots response? ARM THE TEACHERS.

      That’s their idea of what’s gonna stop this from happening again. Jesus fucking Christ.

    • Elenor on December 15, 2012 at 07:27

      What’s YOUR response?!

      Disarm the law-abiding?

      Howinthehell do you intend to get guns away from nuts and criminals?!

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 07:30


      I lived in Japan for five years, travelled extensively in the western pacific and Far East. I then lived in France, I speak the language and have extensive travels in Europe.

  18. lame lame lame on December 15, 2012 at 01:47

    “Those morons—and so many of the Europeans, where it’s been fashionable to be a disarmed, defenseless pussy for decades—will call for further disarming and pussification of the already defenseless.”

    See, it’s actually safe in Europe to go to school. To get on a bus. To go to the movies. To leave your house. And it’s precisely because gun control WORKS. If this makes us pussies, then yeah, arm your entire nation and see if the amount of shootings goes down in the future. Since things seem to be going so well for you over there with your “god given right to bear arms”.

    Yep we’re all such pussies here. But we’re smart enough not to put our kids at risk by putting guns in the hands of anyone and everyone.

    This has nothing to do with the cops Richard. This is entirely your attempt to blame them and not the real culprit: gun owership. Shame on you, you stupid heartless pig.

    • I don't think so on December 15, 2012 at 03:18

      I think a quick internet search is in order my friend. Europe is not some eutopian society, in fact crime rates in the major members are higher (in some cases much higher) than in the US.

    • lame lame lame on December 15, 2012 at 05:05

      I Don’t Think So, I think some reading comprehension classes are in order.

      Where did I say anything about crime rates? This is about mass murder committed by people with guns. And how in hell can you even compare rates of robbery and theft with SHOOTING UP A SCHOOL AND MURDERING CHILDREN?

    • traderpaul on December 15, 2012 at 06:56

      @ lame lame lame

      I think you are the one with reading comprehension problems.

      “This has nothing to do with the cops Richard. This is entirely your attempt to blame them…”

      This post was not blaming the cops as you say, it was blaming the fantasy that the cops, 9-1-1 system and government will protect you. This fantasy is taught to all of us from an early age, is used to justify government’s predations over us and it is totally false.

    • Dave on December 15, 2012 at 07:16

      Well, you did say safe initially and didn’t define it. Now, you are changing it to mass murder by people with guns. It is difficult to refute your points if you are changing the definitions mid argument.

      As well as you are appealing to emotions/inflaming them.

    • Raynote on December 28, 2012 at 00:57

      “And how in hell can you even compare rates of robbery and theft with SHOOTING UP A SCHOOL AND MURDERING CHILDREN?”

      And how about the shooting in a school that we had in France in Toulouse last spring (3 children and one teacher dead)? But maybe nobody heard about it outside France.

      Guns are banned here, except for terrorists and criminals who don’t seem to have any problems procuring them and keeping them.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 08:10

      The chief unintended consequence of disarmament in the UK and elsewhere is the rate of what are known as “hot burglaries,” where burglars, knowing the occupants of a residence are unarmed, break in when people are home rather than as is more common in the US, casing the place to break in when nobody is home.

      “In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it’s hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining “That’s the way to get shot.” (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

      “By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of “hot” burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a “hot” burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a “hot” burglary.)

      “Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.”

      “But the trouble is that this kind of burglary – the kind most likely to go “wrong” – is now the norm in Britain. In America, it’s called a “hot” burglary – a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present – or a “home invasion”, which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are “hot” burglaries, and in my part of the world it’s statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it’s more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police’s petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.”

      “Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.””

    • neal matheson on December 16, 2012 at 00:52

      There have been two highly publicised armed responses to hot robberies recently. In one the burglar was stabbed to death and in another a shotgun was used. In both cases the home owner was not prosecuted. The attitude of the government is changing in this regard I have had three “hot burglaries” when I was younger and lived in cities, in all cases I assaulted the burglar and they did not have the audacity to phone the cops on me.
      Most Brits and probably a lot of Americans rather smugly assure us that a big mean dog is a great burglar deterent. Anecdotally I know that this is true but I also know many people who have been attacked by their own dog, and stories of toddlers and children being attacked and killed by guard dogs are a reccuring theme in the press.
      For the record I am a “2nd ammendment” believing Brit and even rarer (though not as rare as you might believe) a firearm owner.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 08:19

      Good for you, Neal. Be careful out there. You, unlike the endlessly fortunate around here, know what it takes.

      Thanks for making me disgust all of them even more that I did yesterday.

  19. aminoKing on December 15, 2012 at 01:58

    I have no strong opinion on gun ownership other than if everyone else has a gun, then I’d want one too. If no one else had a gun I wouldn’t feel the need for one at all – except on a farm.

    How about a compromise? Tasers instead of guns? You can still defend yourself and morons become a little less dangerous.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 07:37

      Tasers are used to subdue unarmed people. You have to be within a few feet of them.

  20. Craig H on December 15, 2012 at 05:10

    Hi Richard,
    Although most people’s knee jerk reaction will simply be to blame the guns, it takes a lunatic like that kid to cause the violence that occured- guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That said, the guns he used were registered to his mother, which I assume she had for proection. So I’m not sure I buy in to the argument that more people with guns is the answer. I’m Canadian so maybe my perspective is different, however why do home owners need assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns?
    Finally, the larger problem is society as a whole, a basic lack of respect for our fellow man. Guns seem to me to be a downstream effect of far bigger issues.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 08:59


      I don’t think the fact that the guns were his mother’s is pertinent. He was 20. Getting them from somewhere would not have been an insurmountable problem and if you look at the link I just posted, Seven Myths, mass murders are typically planned for a long time.

      Here’s a counter-point:

      Had this 12-yr-old girl waited for cops instead of getting her mom’s Glok and shooting the intruder, who knows…

      Here’s more, since, unlike all the pacifists who’ve shown up, I actually come armed with facts, crime statistics, studies, etc.

      “Of the 5,000 incidents reported between October 2003 and November 2011, 488 involved home burglaries along with another 1,227 incidents where intruders fled when confronted by armed inhabitants. Another 34 concerned pizza delivery drivers defending themselves, along with 172 animal attacks. Concerns about an attacker taking a gun away from an armed victim were proven invalid, with 227 incidents reported where the intended victim disarmed his attacker, while just 11 attackers disarmed his victim. Twenty-five rapes were avoided by armed victims. Two hundred and one attacks were neutralized by armed senior citizens (over age 65, according to the authors).

      “The study also put into perspective the number of accidental shootings that were reported to the papers in that eight-year period. Although the Centers for Disease Control reported 535 accidental shootings in 2006, the authors found only five in their database. The study also identified 36 cases where the defender lost his life during the incident but that compares to the 210 cases where the perpetrator was shot by his intended victim. Sixty-five carjackings were successfully ended by an armed citizen who used his weapon to defend himself.”

      ….I can do this all day long.

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 06:18

      “Concerns about an attacker taking a gun away from an armed victim were proven invalid, with 227 incidents reported where the intended victim disarmed his attacker, while just 11 attackers disarmed his victim.”

      I always point out (when discussing this with people who don’t have guns and might want one) that you have to have done the thinking and deciding LONG before deciding to own or carry a gun. If you have not already made up your mind beforehand that: yes, if it comes down to it, you ARE willing to shot and possibly kill another human being, then you are not ready to have or carry a gun. It’s anecdotal (sorry, Richard, no refs for me this morning! {wink}), but the folks who ‘have their guns taken and used against them’ — seem to be folks who have not decided *beforehand* that they have a ‘personal defense zone’ and if the bad guy enters it he WILL get shot…

      They are still agonizing, as the bad guy gets too close, over whether or not they are actually in danger and whether or not this is the right time to fire and and and… and that gives the bad guy — who HAS long since made up HIS mind — all the time he needs to act as he will. Just as having a (mental) “line” about how close you’ll let a dangerous animal get…. oh wait — that IS letting a dangerous animal get too close…. {shrug}

      To me? It’s what the (not entirely sane) Lierre Keith calls “adult knowledge.” If you make the adult decision to carry a deadly weapon, then you have to have made the adult decision that are you willing to kill someone.

      {start rant}
      I woke this morning thinking with jaundice about my weenie-liberal bro-in-law. He has always said he would never carry a gun, nor use one to protect his son, because he might shoot an innocent standing behind or beyond the bad guy. (So, he’d rather 100% risk to let his son get hurt or killed than a minuscule risk of possibly hurting someone else?! To me, that’s just crazy!) I want to (but won’t — family harmony and all) ask him if he thinks that even the risk of hitting ONE “innocent” in this latest massacre could ever be balanced against stopping the shooter before he killed twenty-plus more?!

      All you gun-haters don’t realize that it’s **agonizing** to those of us who carry to KNOW we could have prevented so many, many deaths — and y’all’s idiotic, childish fears and hatred of guns prevented it. Richard’s neighbors won’t put up “gun-free-house” signs (neither will mine, by the way) — but y’all fer shure put them on schools and churches and advertise that “here’s the perfect unprotected barrel for you nutcases to come shoot fish in!”

      Do we gunnies get angry and motivated to push back against all the ‘gun control now!’ crap that comes after these events? Yes, of course! That gun control crap is what ALLOWED this to happen! By disarming the adults who should be “on watch” and (actually and effectively) protecting these children and then advertising “come here to safely shoot our children!” — YOU create the situation you deplore! And our hearts just bleed for the grief and loss, because this DID NOT HAVE TO BE SO HORRIBLE!

      If this nutcase had come in and shot the first child — and an armed adult had then *killed* him — there would be huge grief and sorrow for the ONE family. Instead, the shooter comes in and kills freely however many he wants (because it’s an advertised GUN-free zone. Uh. Not noticeably.) and so there is more grief and pain than can be encompassed.

      Stupid, stupid gun-haters.
      {sigh. end of my rant, but not of my grief and anger}

      (Oh, one last little hoorah. My liberal-weenie sister says: if someone attacked her son (same son) she would throw herself tooth-and-nail at the attacker, regardless of her own safety. {eye roll} Doesn’t it make sense, I ask, to learn to EFFECTIVELY protect your son? If you “throw yourself tooth-and-nail,” a generally INeffective response, the bad guy would just shoot, or knife, or punch you out of his way — and then do whatever he wishes with your son. Your innate and admirable desire to protect him does NOT outweigh the fact that completely ineffective “protection” is … you know… completely INeffective. If you TRULY care to protect him, you need to learn to (and be prepared to) actually protect him… not just hope you can! Nope. She not willing.)

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 09:00

      Fortunately, I’ve run the scenario in my mind many, many times over many years.

      Not only would I shoot, I’d chase him down if he ran, dance in circles as he hopefully suffers before he dies, and then go regularly to piss on the grave.

      When I say blood lust in this regard, I’m dead fucking serious.

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 13:08

      +1 +1 +1 (except I wouldn’t bother with the peeing on his grave… Too hard for girls!)

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:46

      “Assault rifles” are select-fire – they can fire semi- or full-auto. All full-auto weapons have been heavily licensed and regulated by the Federal government since 1934, and almost no legally-owned ones have ever been used in crimes. The ones that were were owned by corrupt cops. Full-auto weapons have been illegal to make for civilian purchase since 1986, so the few that are on the civilian market are very expensive, even though they cost about as much to make as semi-autos.

      As for “semi-auto handguns,” those don’t fire any faster than a single-action Colt. 45 from the Civil War era. However, I need a semi-auto handgun because I might need to be able to shoot a bad guy when I only have one hand free, and can’t use the other hand to cock the hammer of a single-action revolver. Why should my right to self-defense be relegated to 19th-century technology?

    • Bob L on December 21, 2012 at 11:56

      ““Assault rifles” are select-fire – they can fire semi- or full-auto.”

      True, but the term Assault Weapon is not as clear. The definition most used currently was created specifically to ban ugly guns.

  21. Marc on December 15, 2012 at 06:18

    Lame lame lame……..

    Reminds me of “lambda lambda lambda “……. Revenge of the Nerds 🙂

    In all seriousness, do you know how many attempted suicide bombers and nut jobs get stopped in their tracks in Israel?
    responsible caring citizens that are armed do help avoid tragedies like this recent one in CT.

    And just some input from someone that grew up in Europe….. Europe is not at all as safe as you think.


  22. josef on December 15, 2012 at 06:43

    The police in America have become an overpaid, careerist, neo-nazi, paramilitary force whose only objective is to harass and oppress law abiding citizens.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 07:46

      Not only that Josef, but even the so-called “good ones” would rather take a sharp pencil to the eye that rat out corruption or those who ought not be cops.

      Being a cop demands the highest degree of cool headedness and self restraint, not the GI Joes they recruit for, now.

    • Contemplationist on December 15, 2012 at 20:30

      Yes I read sometime back that the ridiculous full-metal-gear SWAT raids that the cops indulge in are a very far cry from what soldiers in the war do! I mean, you can’t even call this shit police ‘militarization’ because the military is not this insane. When they corner a suspected shooter/terrorist/enemy combatant, they simply surround the house/enclosed area and ask the person to come out which usually happens. The cops make me sick.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 23:58

      I can’t even stomach reliving it, as that was a big part of what I blogged about in the first years.

      Radley Balko still does, lots of links, single handedly got a guy off death row, then released, after killing a cop in self defense, etc. etc.

      I’m just tired. The cops are basically an occupying force to anyone who gets in the way or their aspirations.

  23. Teddy P on December 15, 2012 at 06:51

    Your solution to the ‘problem’ is to arm all those willing in schools. I assume this means public universities as well. We could extrapolate this ad infinitum to all walks of life but for my point I will restrict the solution to education.

    If we are comparing which strategies are best (yours vs. whats now in place) then I think a good indicator would be the theoretical death total difference between the two. The point I’d like to make is that you have to count on the deaths prevented from the mass shootings to be more than the accidental deaths by having the influx of perhaps an excess of a million guns in the hands of educators.

    I don’t know what the total deaths of mass killings in public education has been but if we look at the last 15 years let me assume for arguments sake that there have been 100 deaths. Even if all 100 deaths were prevented, you’d have to hope that less that 7 accidental deaths a year would happen. This is not to mention any possible increase (or decrease) of crimes of passion or suicide.

    Quickly checking there are approximately 5 million educators across all levels in the US and well over 50 million students. If over 100 million people have passed through our school systems with 100 having been unlucky enough to be part of a mass killing making this a 1 in a million chance, do you think its necessary to make such a massive change to what we have in place. All someone has to do is build a bomb and have it go off in a lecture hall or stadium and no amount of guns could protect that.

    So I don’t think we have that much of a problem considering our massive 311 million population.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 08:35

      “Your solution to the ‘problem’ is to arm all those willing in schools.”

      Not exactly. The solution is is far more fundamental that that: drop the fantasy that big daddy government will always be there to protect you. The police almost never protect anyone unless the potential crime is somehow announced ahead of time, such as a hostage situation, bomb threat, etc. The police provide some measure of deterrence but criminologist interviews of convicted felons show clearly that most predators are more afraid of an armed citizen than police.

      Now, once everyone has gotten over that fantasy and accepted reality, I imagine different individuals will have different solutions. Arming teachers or other school officials who are willing to pass rigorous training and maintain their qualifications is but one possible solution. It would serve as mostly a deterrent effect. Moreover, it’s not like all the teachers would need to be armed.

      At the University level, the students themselves can fill the role, as in here:

      I am loath always to provide prescriptions and proscriptions. My purpose is always to zero in on the reality of the matter and help people to understand it. Then, individual and group solutions become more obvious, with greater chances of success because they are made in contemplation of real reality and not platitudes, ideology, panacea, etc, etc.

  24. Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 08:42

    For general consumption:

    From “The Seven Myths of Mass Murder.”

    Myth 3: Incidents of mass murder are increasing

    When a mass murder occurs, it receives instant and pervasive news coverage. Unfortunately, we are prone to overestimate the frequency of an event by its prominence in our minds, and mass murder is no exception. This is a very rare phenomenon and is neither increasing nor decreasing in the US. Since 1976 there have been about 20 mass murders a year. 2003 was the most violent year for mass murder, with 30 incidents and 135 victims. Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Edmund Oklahoma, and San Ysidro still resonate in the public consciousness, however, reminding us that these events do happen. A positive counterpoint is that rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased over this same time period, from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010. The most lethal school mass murder in US history was in Bath, Michigan, in 1927, a bombing that resulted in 45 deaths, mostly children in the second to sixth grades.

  25. marie on December 15, 2012 at 08:58

    Knee-jerk reactions all around, depressing.
    From ‘ban all guns’ to ‘arm everyone to the teeth’ to….police are useless – sure, because the thiefs that ran away from my house a couple of years ago, when the alarm went off at 2am (apparently they weren’t scared of being shot by residents) did so to protect their tender ears from the noise. Not because they wanted to avoid capture by the police, who arrived within 4 minutes. Another unit caught them, btw, a few blocks away, speeding through traffic lights. Smart. But then, criminals are all brilliant masterminds, the movies tell us so, we should be afraid, very afraid and very armed. Not some combination of protection that suits each particular needs, not in some circumstances or locations (home, for example, especially homes remote from police aid or in poorly served areas), nope, it’s all or nothing folks, be fully armed and by golly don’t call those cops even if they Can help you.
    Meanwhile, there is no protection against a lunatic with a semi, not by anyone else and not by ourselves either, it is like protecting against a suicide bomber. Their advantage being, they’re not afraid to die and they have a massively effective weapon.
    The only thing then that can be done is limit the extent of the damage, take away access to semi-automatics (not to mention the kits that can convert some of them to full auto).
    Sure, criminals will always be able to get them, they have networks for just that, but these mass murderers aren’t criminals, they are your average joe who goes crazy. Crazy joe wouldn’t be able to pick up his mom’s semis, if his mom didn’t have any.
    But that’s just a rational approach, can’t let it get in the way of rabid pro/anti gun politics. Politics, in the face of massive human tragedy, disgusting.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 09:29

      Feel free to refute any of the mass of actual data and statistics I’ve posted, marie.

    • marie on December 15, 2012 at 09:45

      Why? Some others are doing so, but I don’t think it will change anything for the entrenched on either side.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 09:47

      Others are doing so? Actual data, crime stats, published studies, books and interviews of criminologists? I must have missed all that.

    • marie on December 15, 2012 at 10:28

      Did you see me argue anywhere that there should be full gun control? No, of course not.
      Why would I care about either side’s statistics and models, domestic or foreign, that look at All or Nothing?
      Where is the stat that says that in this country, when it comes to criminals most semis are in the hands of gangs, not burglars? How many home robberies are done in order to steal guns? How many are foiled by home alarms?
      No one can figure out that in areas where there’s good police response you got lower crime vs areas where there isn’t?
      Let’s just suspend logic and look at crime stats from big cities or rural areas to tell the suburbs what they should be afraid of.
      Come on, you are not going to tell me the conversation isn’t hopelessly polarized?
      It’s Japan vs US, or Canada vs Russia (personally, I kinda like that comparison…but heh, that’s me) and Either side can cite all kinds of cultural excuses for why one or the other works as it does.
      And what has any of it to do with any proposals to limit specifically the damage from mass murderers? Nothing, because the people who immediately started talking pro or against gun control are using a tragedy to further their polarized positions. There’s no stat to refute that.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 11:29

      “Why would I care about either side’s statistics and models, domestic or foreign, that look at All or Nothing?”

      I missed the part where any of us talking about the right to self defense in the context of gun ownership have argued in any respect for ALL.

      Quite the contrary.

      “Where is the stat that says that in this country, when it comes to criminals most semis are in the hands of gangs, not burglars? How many home robberies are done in order to steal guns?”

      Most or all of such stats are available. I’ve already cited tons of stats of various sorts.

      “How many are foiled by home alarms?”

      Ha, post hoc, ergo propter hoc. How many people contentious enough to install home alarms are also the sort that have a backup plan? How many burglars do you suppose understand that a person who has an alarm likely has various layers of security, such as guns, vs those who show no sign of self defense preparedness.

      In fact, everyone I know who has alarm systems also has guns.

      Of course, as already cited in one article I posted, burglars in the UK quickly figured out what to do in the face of all the alarm and surveillance equipment. You simply go up, knock on the door and then storm the place as soon as it’s answered. That’s why 50% of burglaries in the UK are hot (a growing problem I’ve followed for years) vs 10% in the US.

      “No one can figure out that in areas where there’s good police response you got lower crime vs areas where there isn’t?”

      That’s easy. Crime is greatest in dense urban areas where police are also denser and response is more rapid. Rural areas are “red” areas, where people see to their own protection more often with guns.

      “Come on, you are not going to tell me the conversation isn’t hopelessly polarized?”

      Of course it is. But I bring data. Nobody else, except for those also dealing with the reality of self defense.

      “And what has any of it to do with any proposals to limit specifically the damage from mass murderers?”

      A lot. The first step is to realize that when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. That’s an irrefutable reality. So far, I’m one of only a few others here who are committed to dealing with that reality. There is no magic solution to defend people from sociopaths. There is only real, effective self defense and that includes having at least some armed responsible citizens around.

      “because the people who immediately started talking pro or against gun control are using a tragedy to further their polarized positions.”

      Unfortunately, a growing position is that I and other responsible gun owners ought to be disarmed and rendered defenseless. Otherwise, I’d have nothing to say on the matter.

      Or…I advocate zero force. I require no one to own or be trained to use a firearm. Conversely, there are those advocating that I be forcibly disarmed, ironically, by means of state force that has proven itself incompetent to defend.

      the positions are polarized for sure, but not in the remotest sense equivalent. I’m in the position of having to defend myself against those who would render me defenseless.

    • marie on December 15, 2012 at 12:55

      Richard, “I’m in the position of having to defend myself against those who would render me defenseless” – ah, so that’s what you were doing…..with video of one handed shooting practice? Playing right into the hands of the extreme so-called pacifists who think everyone who wants guns for self protection is just a selfish gun-lover (or a rabid wild-west revivalist, or a backwoods tax-denier, or…..).
      Funny though, how not one of the armed citizens in any state that allows them in any mass shootings in recent years tried to shoot the shooter. Instinct is to run away and/or spirit your family to safety, not stand up for a shoot-out at the o.k. coral against a guy with a semi, not to mention some sporting flak-jackets too. As I said originally, there is no defense for that, not even by individuals.
      So separate the discussion of mass murderers from the home defense.
      How about weapons control for AK-47s, bazookas, shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft guns? Of course, that’s in place already, there is weapons control for weapons that can cause mass damage, it’s a question of extending it to all such weapons, that is, to semi-automatics as well.
      This is where the sane gun owners, the majority, get a chance to be the rational ones in the flaring ‘gun’ control debate, if they came across with the simple message that Everyone has the right to guns for self protection, but No one has the right to weapons of mass murder.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 16:41

      “h, so that’s what you were doing…..with video of one handed shooting practice? ”

      Damn straight. Ever tried it? It’s fun & challenging.

      You ought to at least know by now that I could not care less what idiots and morons think and truth be told I’d rather them see “my worst” right off the bat. I operate honestly. I write what I think with absolutely no concern for the consequences.

      “Funny though, how not one of the armed citizens in any state that allows them in any mass shootings in recent years tried to shoot the shooter.”

      Laf. Thanks for illustrating the extreme randomness and rarity. Can you point me to a single reference where there was a know CCPH present? How about an off duty cop?

      “How about weapons control for AK-47s, bazookas, shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft guns?”

      Yawn. Typical arguments from people who don’t realize they’ve been dealt with for years.

      I’ve put up lots and lots of refs and so far, you, not one. So how about go do some of your own research?

      “but No one has the right to weapons of mass murder.”

      More laf. It’s the biggest mass murders with the most murderous weapons.

      And people complain about what in comparison, are muzzle loading muskets.

    • marie on December 15, 2012 at 19:10

      Richard, we’ve had the statistics references smack-down before, back then it was actually an argument about crime and gun control, I brought the Canadian stats as examples.
      My point now is that mass murder is a special beast, it’s not a rational crime for gain, so how is it relevant to argue about the effect of gun control on crime?
      More people carrying guns would increase survivability against a semi-automatic wielding lunatic in a flak jacket who isn’t afraid to die? I’m glad you quoted the references to laws on carrying in various states, or I would have – the fact that more people don’t carry makes even weaker any argument that they could take down a shooter.
      My question on bazookas is of course ironic since I answered in the next sentence – so what research are you talking about? The only point there is that weapons that can cause mass damage are already controlled, there’s no reason to exclude semi-automatics, unless you think it’s some kind of slippery slope, first they take our semis, then our hunting rifles.
      Yes, my last sentence on weapons of mass murder was unintentionally hilarious when thinking of government 🙂 Governments are the biggest mass murderers of all. Yes.
      However that doesn’t mean I want even more people with the capability to do mass murder. People for the most part don’t yet live in small self-supporting/self-controlling communities that could head-off this lunacy in the first place, so limiting damage in the meantime is, I’m thinking, the best that can be done.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 10:22

      I’d completely forgotten about that one.

      “The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. “I’ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,” said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

      “Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.

      “But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. “Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again,” Myrick said.”

      Wonder how many would have been spared had that good man had his gun on his hip.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 22:44

      “I brought the Canadian stats as examples”

      Excuse me if I don’t recall. I tend to recall the relevant.

      “so how is it relevant to argue about the effect of gun control on crime?”

      Opportunity to capture another mind, somewhere and any time. One mind at a time, always, any and all opportunity. You all are my stage props, as I am myself, in that endeavor.

      “More people carrying guns would increase survivability against a semi-automatic wielding lunatic in a flak jacket who isn’t afraid to die?”

      TBD. Once we actually have a competent, armed person at such an event, we’ll have actual data.

      “the fact that more people don’t carry makes even weaker any argument that they could take down a shooter.”

      One has zero to do with the other. Completely separate events. People who want to carry in staes that permit it, do. Crime is not increased, gun crime by permit holders is substantially less than general population.

      I’d love seeing magnitudes more people with guns, and not just concealed, but right out in the open, like the Wild West. Ha! Would love it.

      Nobody _needs_ to take down a shooter. It’s simple math that the more guns are ubiquitous, the more chance such events would be deterred, thwarted or cut short. This is obvious.

      I want way, way more guns, out in the open.

      “My question on bazookas is of course ironic”

      No, it’s not. It’s sophomoric hypothetical. It’s not an issue, just a useless diversion on your part that I’ve never fallen for in 20 years at this sort of thing.

      I seriously can’t make heads or tails or your last parts. You are not your usual clear head.

      The biggest mass killing of elementary school children was about 45 of them. Bath, MI, I believe, circa 1927. It was a bomb.

      You can not prevent this. Everyone get that through their heads. The issue is whether you want to be a cowering pussy locked in a closet, praying to. A fantasy, or fight for your life like a real human being.

      …I think it’s time for bed, before I start hating everyone, again.

      Jesus fucking Christ,

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 06:39

      Marie: Funny though, how not one of the armed citizens in any state that allows them in any mass shootings in recent years tried to shoot the shooter.

      Just exactly what the media has been TRAINING you to believe all these years. In many of these incidents — the only thing that stops the shooter IS someone with a gun. But the media almost never mentions that! That kid in Kentucky shooting up his schoolmates was only stopped when the vice principal ran OFF the school grounds to his truck (which he had to park off the grounds because he was not willing to not be disarmed) GOT his gun and came back onto school grounds and stopped the kid. The police you’re relying on so heavily? Were not even THERE yet! (Right? Needed the police in seconds, but they were many minutes away!) Did the media cover this use of a legally owned gun to stop a worse massacre? Almost none! Did YOU know?

      When you say that armed folks can’t make a difference, you’re flat-out wrong! They DO make a difference — and you just don’t know about it! Why? Because it keeps you and your fellow uneducated anti-gunners ‘marching’ for gun-control!

      Marie: As I said originally, there is no defense for that, not even by individuals.

      This is just your uneducated hope, not a fact. (On what possible basis do you make this idiotic statement?!)

      Marie: So separate the discussion of mass murderers from the home defense.

      How can we? You, along with so many others, are advocating that OUR guns be taken to prevent another (the next) mass murder. Even though taking our guns is guaranteed to NOT be effective (indeed to be damaging to public safety)!

    • Marnee on December 16, 2012 at 17:00

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 17:54

      excellent, Marnee

      now go watch some of those dozens and dozens of videos, IGNORAMUS MORONS, those who would suggest disarming these people and me, in ANY way.

      Then go fuck yourselves.

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:51

      Sorry, you’re not paying attention. Several of the school shootings in the past decade or so were stopped by armed civilians; one was a teacher who ran to his car, got his handgun, brought it back, & stopped the shooter.

      In a case in Oregon, a kid on the wrestling team stopped the shooter while he was reloading. The TV reporters were all set to interview the hero, when he showed up w/ his Navy SEAL dad, both wearing their NRA caps. He knew when to tackle the shooter because he’d been taught about guns by his father.

      Full-auto weapons are already legal for civilians to own, but they’re heavily licensed & regulated by the Feds. It’s legal to own a 40mm bofors anti-aircraft cannon, but how many crimes have you heard of being committed w/ one of those?

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 06:26

      Marie: Meanwhile, there is no protection against a lunatic with a semi, not by anyone else and not by ourselves either, it is like protecting against a suicide bomber.

      What?! Are you just completely unaware that the Israelis manage to stop *lots* of suicide bombers because SO MANY ISRAELIS ARE ARMED!?!? Being armed is absolutely a protection against a lunatic with a semi — because if (when) you SHOOT HIM, the semi exits the picture! Are you one who thinks that just cowering and praying when a lunatic is preferable from protecting yourself with your own weapon!?

  26. Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 09:10
  27. G on December 15, 2012 at 09:38

    Japan …… Interesting ….

    Why are Americans so scared of the unseen and unknown? Scared the police can’t or won’t help, scared that trying to achieve things collectivly for all fairly (socialism) will always fail………. u guys are the closest ancestors to the Nazi’s these days. Your feckin freaks ……… run to the hills build a wall and get some god damn ammo ……….. them dark skin folk might be around here or ……….EVEN WORSE the peace keeping united nations ………. FUCK I’M SOOOO SCARED ……….. bang bang DEFEND yourself.

    The worst savage is he who thinks to be civilised is in language and look alone.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 10:04

      I suggest people read the actual study article that forms the basis. Essentially, police state combined with submissive culture. BTW, I did live in Hayama Japan for five years. I know a little bit about their sort of docile, submissive nature first hand.

      VIII. Conclusion

      The idea that Japanese gun laws should serve as model for other nations is not uncommon. Some Americans propose laws even more severe than Japan’s.[124] Often, the suggestion comes as an offhand remark in an newspaper editorial, but even when the suggestion is advanced by scholars, the reasoning is often superficial and unpersuasive.

      L Craig Parker, an American expert on the Japanese police, proposes that the United States adopt Japanese gun control and also other Japanese strategies, such as a National Police Agency. Parker’s brief discussion of guns, however, simply recites statistics showing that Japan has less guns and less gun crime. His only evidence that gun control would actually reduce crime in America is a study by Dr Leonard Berkowitz arguing that guns cause aggression. Actually, what the studies by Berkowitz and others showed was that people acted more aggressively towards other people if the other person was associated with weapons; for example, motorists reacted more aggressively to other vehicles slow to accelerate when a red light turned green if the slow car had a rude bumper sticker and a rifle in a gun rack.[125]

      Summing up the perspective of many gun prohibitionists, one Japanese newspaper reporter writes, ‘It strikes me as clear that there is a distinct correlation between gun control laws and the rate of violent crime. The fewer the guns, the less the violence’.[126] But the claim that fewer guns correlates with less violence is plainly wrong. America experienced falling crime and homicide rates in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1980s, all periods during which per capita gun (p.40)ownership, especially handgun ownership, rose.[127] And Japan, with its severe gun control, suffers no less murder than Switzerland, one of the most gun-intensive societies on earth.[128]

      Japan’s gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan’s gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.

      Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.

      Simply put, the Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than Americans. America’s non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan’s, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the two nations.[129] Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in American prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons.[130] Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.[131]

      As a general matter, gun control does not take a great deal of police time to enforce because the Japanese voluntarily comply. The Japanese have acceded that gun control protects them effectively. There was and is little need for individual self-defense guns.

      Even if gun control were resisted, it would be relatively easy to enforce in Japan. Police freedom to search and seize would help, and so would Japan’s status as an island, which makes control of illegal imports such as drugs or guns easier than in the United States.[132] The civilian stock of gun ownership was always small. Hence, civil disarmament was easy to enforce. In Japan, the police set records in a year when they confiscate 1,767 handguns from gangsters.[133] It is not uncommon for that many illegal handguns to be seized by the police in a single American city in one year. Some of the Japanese tour groups in Hawaii take their customers to local gun clubs to do something that the customers have never done before: see, hold, and shoot a real gun.[134]

      In short, while many persons may admire Japan’s near prohibition of gun ownership, it is not necessarily true that other nations, such as the United States, could easily replicate the (p.41)Japanese model. Japan’s gun laws grow out of a culture premised on voluntary submission to authority, a cultural norm that is not necessarily replicated in Western democracies.

    • Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 12:52

      Japan is a small island with an homogeneous population. The US is not. American culture cannot be Japanese culture (except maybe in small, isolated areas with the resources and the will to cut themselves off from the rest of us). The US fed cannot operate the way Japan’s central government does (without exposing itself to even worse chaos when the system blows).

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 10:12

      “Why are Americans so scared of the unseen and unknown?”

      Why are you so afraid of responsible people owning the means of self defense? In actuality, it would be a trivial task in logic to deconstruct your non-argument and demonstrate that it’s the advocates of strict gun-contol that are scared. People with guns like me aren’t really scared, and I’m especially not scared of any of the many dozens of people I know who have guns. In fact, it’s quite nice.

      We’re the ones dealing with reality, you the ones dealing in irrational fear, proposing “solutions” that will serve only to placate your irrational fear–kinda like the TSA searching everyone getting on an airplane. It serves to placate the masses.

      The simple fact is, responsible gun ownership prevents thousands of wold-be cromer each and every year in America, and that’s on top of the deterrent effect, such that in the US, hot burglaries account for only 10% of all, but in disarmed GB, 50% of burglaries are hot, the occupants at home.

    • G on December 15, 2012 at 10:33

      [stupid shit, deleted.]

    • Tim Starr on December 17, 2012 at 10:34

      Japan banned guns to prevent the Tokugawa Shogunate from being overthrown. A few centuries later, Japan banned the carrying of swords by the Samurai to prevent them from overthrowing the Meiji Restoration. You can see this dramatized in the movie “The Last Samurai.” So, the Samurai just went into the Japanese military, where they were allowed to carry both swords and guns. Then they waged an assassination campaign against the civilian leadership so they could take over again, resulting in the Militarist regime, the invasion of China, the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Pacific War, and millions of civilian deaths. So, then we had to firebomb & nuke them into submission, abolish their military, aristocracy, turn their Emperor into a constitutional monarch, break up the estates of the large landowners, then protect them from their neighbors for the rest of the time since then. Something we were only able to do because we still had the right to keep & bear arms here in America. Worked out great for them, eh?

  28. Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 09:49

    I like the option of calling the cops, but I don’t like the idea (very modern) that I should rely on them exclusively for protection that they are patently unable to provide.

    I have the same problem with doctors. I don’t object to them existing and practicing their business (however they practice it: I presume that the bad ones will put themselves out of work). I object when I am supposed to give up all personal responsibility for my medical well-being and throw myself (and my resources, financial and other) on the mercy of certified health professionals (including doctors).

    • Todd on December 15, 2012 at 10:14

      I like the option of calling the cops, too, but that’s probably not going to do me a lot of good when a burgular, assaulter, or whatever is around. There are two loaded handguns in my house, one upstairs and one downstairs. Assuming I’m not immediately caught up with an intruder, I can get to one of those two handguns much quicker than picking up my phone, dialing 911, someone answering, telling them what’s happening, and waiting for the police to respond. The crime is most likely over. Maybe my life, too.

      Another thing, I don’t know with 100% if I would act or not, but I feel that I would, and I would like to think I would shoot to kill. I don’t want to live in fear that perhaps this person would come back for vengeance at another time. I’m not into looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life. What are the chances this will ever happen? Slim, but having a loaded handgun is not something I want to give up.

      What if you were somewhere publicly and you had the option to fight back potentially ave lives?

      I sure wish that older man didn’t have a gun. He’s probably a miscreant who normally would use his handgun to harm innocent people.

    • Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 10:22


    • G on December 15, 2012 at 10:24

      Make no mistake about it. Your lack of willingness to be braver in the face of danger will result in more children suffering horrific gun related drama/trauma/death.
      Statisticallly accounting for population etc etc blah blah that acceptable right? U get to send your children to schools that have the security measures of airports seeking out terrorists, you feed them complete nutritionally defunct crud, and they get to witness gun crime before they got there dick sucked.

      Your right that peace of mind you have is totally worth it.

      The balinese people when refusing to surrender to the dutch invaders, dressed themselves in thier finest clothes and adorned themselves with thier greatest jewellery. They marched into the guns unarmed and to thier mass deaths…………….. America has no fucking idea what bravery is. Cowards to the bone. Man up

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 10:38

      “America has no fucking idea what bravery is. Cowards to the bone. Man up”

      You’re a fucking moron.

    • G on December 15, 2012 at 10:41

      [stupid shit, deleted.]

    • Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 10:58

      If I am ever in a shooting, I will do my best to respond with appropriate violence (using the only weapons I have, the ones I was born with). I practice fighting a lot (for fun), but sport/practice is not the same thing as reality, and weapons make the fight very uneven.

      I already face danger with my bare fucking hands, and if I had been in that school with my kids when the shooter opened fire, I would most likely be dead alongside them (heroically dead, perhaps). I admire people who choose their fate. That is courage. I don’t appreciate it when people try to intimidate me into choosing theirs. That is bullying. I would be perfectly happy to face you without weapons (which I don’t own anyway): physical courage is not at issue here.

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 07:05

      Joseph: I would be perfectly happy to face you without weapons (which I don’t own anyway): physical courage is not at issue here.

      No physical courage isn’t the issue, EFFECTIVENESS is!

      Joseph: I would most likely be dead alongside them

      So whatinthehell was the point of you? You didn’t SAVE any children, just wasted your own life to no purpose!

      You’re so proud of your INEFFECTIVE fighting skills?! ” I’m so tough, I’d DIE without saving a child?!?! Lookit me, I’m SO tough that I’d DIE because I wouldn’t bring a weapon to a WEAPON-fight?!” I am SO unimpressed!

      Jesus, what a fool!

    • Joseph on December 18, 2012 at 08:34

      I was just trying to be nice to G, Elenor. His point about courage is one that I can sympathize with, even if I wouldn’t recommend the approach universally.

      I am not proud of my fighting skills. I am always looking to improve.

      I grew up without guns, and am currently poor and employed, with a family to support: they need food more regularly than protection. That said, I hope one day to have the resources to arm myself and be a fully responsible human being. I admit I am not perfect. There are many contexts (important contexts) in human life where I lack experience (sadly). That is just the reality.

    • Todd on December 15, 2012 at 10:58

      G said: “The balinese people when refusing to surrender to the dutch invaders, dressed themselves in thier finest clothes and adorned themselves with thier greatest jewellery. They marched into the guns unarmed and to thier mass deaths…………….. America has no fucking idea what bravery is. Cowards to the bone. Man up”

      They’re dead right? A lot of good that did them. That has nothing to do with bravery and everything to do with not defending themselves. Their right, sure, but not the way I plan to go.

      I don’t say this often, but you’re a fucking idiot.

    • G on December 15, 2012 at 12:34

      [stupid shit, deleted]

    • Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 11:00

      I only send my kids to school because the government makes me. I don’t feed them crud (at least not on purpose). We have yet to witness any shootings.

      I am not above committing suicide to make a statement and admire the Balinese.

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 07:10

      Joseph: I am not above committing suicide to make a statement

      And what of your responsibility to PROTECT your children? Oh fine: “I’ll just die and whatever happens to THEM doesn’t mean anything to ME, cause I died as a “tough” (tough?) suicide.” What utter b.s.!

      A MAN takes the effective steps necessary to protect his family. “Suicide” is the coward’s way out: “*I* won’t protect them effectively, so I’ll just die and leave them to be mis-used — won’t matter to me cause I’ll be dead.”

      Where’s your manhood? Where’s your masculine pride in EFFECTIVE protection of your family? Oooohhhh you’re *SO* tough… that you’d just die?!?

      I usually try not to insult men so directly — but jesus!! How can your family RELY on you, if you think suicide without protecting those children is a good thing?!? If you think suicide so you don’t have to fail at protecting them is a good choice?!

    • Joseph on December 18, 2012 at 08:38

      I don’t mind being insulted, Elenor. No worries! My family cannot rely on me to be something I am not. Maybe I am not much of a “man.” I try my best. I am not tough, though I do my best to become tougher over time (trying to leverage the antifragility I have been given, small as it may be).

      I don’t really like “pride” much. What I have is more like grit (that occasionally leads me to do things that I can be proud of for a few moments). But there are situations where the best thing to do may be simply to die. I don’t aim to be in those places, but I cannot guarantee that I won’t end up there anyway.

    • Elenor on December 18, 2012 at 18:08

      Joseph: “I am not above committing suicide to make a statement”

      What statement? That you’re not willing to do what is necessary to survive and protect your family? I don’t get that, I can’t understand it.

      AS a man, your responsibility to your family is to stick around to protect them. “Suicide as a statement” is abdicating your responsibility! (Hell, suicide at all is abdicating your responsibility!) How can they rely on you, if you actually think this way? Who LEADS your family, if you’re ‘thinking well’ of committing suicide, rather than toughing it out to protect the folks relying on you?

      Being without money, or without weapons, doesn’t relieve you of that duty to your family. If the only “weapon” you think you have is to die uselessly, then you need to study duty, responsibility, survival, making weapons when you can’t buy them — and most especially what it is about your own view that allows you to think abandoning the people you love to ‘make a statement’ is acceptable!

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 10:31


      Yea, I was probably going to get around to posting that vid. Thanks.

      What people miss the most in these debates is the actual, real protection even anti-gun types already enjoy, by means of simple deterrence. See the difference in hot burglary rates already cited. See the post on the dismal state of huge increases of violent crime in Australia since the good guys have been disarmed.

      …And people cite Japan, a submissive island culture worlds apart from one that fought off Great Britain with largely privately owned firearms and citizen militia.

      The other thing is that I have yet to EVER debate an anti-gun zealot who had the slightest notion of the state of concealed carry in the US.

      “Among U.S. states, Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.[19][20][21] These states also allow the open carry of a handgun without a permit.”

      “A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate “good cause”. The laws in a Shall-Issue jurisdiction typically state that a granting authority shall issue a permit if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a permit at their discretion.”

      “The following are undisputed Shall-Issue states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,[15] North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[16] Texas, Utah,[17] Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming .[10]”

      Now, much has been made over the years about some evidence of less crime in states with unrestricted or shall issue laws. There are about 8 million active permits in the US—potentially 8 million responsible, private “police” to potentially protect you. But of course, correlation doe not equal causation.

      However, one thing is known with certainty: there is absolutely no increase in crime, accidental shootings, gun suicide and such in states with such laws vs. states without.

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 07:00

      Todd: “Another thing, I don’t know with 100% if I would act or not, but I feel that I would, and I would like to think I would shoot to kill. I don’t want to live in fear that perhaps this person would come back for vengeance at another time.”

      Please, Todd, let me ask you to reconsider this. “Fear he’d return” is an invalid data point in deciding *at this moment* (or in preparation for that moment) how you should act. If you ARE in fear for your life — so your family’s lives — then you should have already made up your mind to act; threaten, draw, fire, — whatever level you are willing to act at. (‘d suggest, as a civilian, “threaten” does not ever enter into your calculations.) If you are NOT in fear for those lives, then you’re not yet in a state where that decision arises.

      As far as shooting to kill? ANY time you put your finger on your trigger, you should be prepared to kill whatever is at the other end of the barrel. “Shooting to wound” — when filled with adrenaline, in close quarters in a house with walls and corners… is a bad choice. As all gun instructors repeat: “center of mass, center of mass”!

      These are the decisions is urge on people considering (or owning) a gun. “In extremis” is NOT the time or place to try to work it out.

    • Todd on December 16, 2012 at 08:01

      You’re preaching to the choir, Elenor. I have conciously made the decision numerous times that I would use my handgun to kill an intruder if it ever came down to it. I agree, you have to come to terms with that before you actually are in that situation. It must be second nature. I have no qualms with killing someone when my life or the one’s I love are on the line. Make no mistake about it, when the police ask why I unloaded my 13 round clip I’ll tell them I would have kept going, but I ran out of rounds.

      In hindsight I chose my words poorly.

    • G on December 15, 2012 at 10:11

      protection from what? do u not see the state of your narrative?

      Guns are a very very important part of USA inc…………. end of. Narratives, narratives, narratives……….. yawn.

    • Joseph on December 15, 2012 at 10:21

      Protection from human animals. Protection from people like the dude who shot up the school. No matter what laws you pass, these animals will exist, and they will try to kill you. Some of the higher-functioning ones may even become police and military: as animals, these guys too can go nuts and start rampaging. There is no society conceivable wherein I run no risk of being attacked and killed by vicious human animals. You can pass laws all day, and they will still be out there thirsting for blood.

    • G on December 15, 2012 at 10:28

      [stupid shit, deleted.]

  29. gabriella kadar on December 15, 2012 at 12:46

    People should stop flapping.

    It seems that angry young white affluent socially inept and isolated males avail themselves of the necessary weapons and ammunition to carry out these sorts of attention getting events. (Like the other ones for the past few years, this guy was also probably playing World of Warcraft.)

    It would appear that these events are ‘unpredictable’, unlike earthquakes, forest fires or hurricanes. Possibly more people would like to carry concealed weapons. If those people believe that doing so will make the world a safer place, only time will tell.

    Since the 2nd ammendment is and will be what it is, like George W. Bush told Americans after 9/11 — go shopping.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 13:12

      “It seems that angry young white affluent socially inept and isolated males avail themselves of the necessary weapons and ammunition to carry out these sorts of attention getting events.”

      At least in the US, that seems largely the case, one exception being the US Army psychiatrist.

    • marie on December 15, 2012 at 13:20

      Gabriella, they avail themselves of what’s available.
      They are not drug gangs who can order up a kalishnikov, and so unsurprisingly most of these mass attacks are with semis. If all they could get their hands on were pistols and hunting rifles, there is no telling how appealing such an attack would be to them (it would look nothing like World of Warcraft, for example) but even if that had no effect, they’d cause much less damage, while at the same time citizens would have a chance against them.

    • gabriella kadar on December 15, 2012 at 14:10

      The reality of role playing games is that the people who play them are role deficient in their real lives. They can and do spend upwards of all their waking hours playing on the computer.

      Look at this recent massacre: the 20 year old lived alone with his mother in a huge house on a 2 plus acre lot up on a hill such that the neighbours didn’t understand why the mother even bothered to put up christmas decorations on the house no one could see.

      What the hell were the two of them doing in their splendid isolation? The mother played dice, but that was years ago. The older son hadn’t been in contact with the younger brother since 2010. What a warm loving family that was. The father got married again and lived elsewhere. The mother was a loving woman? Really? There’s a mixed review on her from people who knew her. Her sister claims if there was anything wrong mentally with the son, the mother would have for sure helped the kid to get help. Kids who went to school with him remember him as a weirdo back 15 years ago.

      And mom had guns to protect herself. It worked, for sure.

      Even if we look at the Norweigian massacre: Same sort of family dynamics. The guy who shot people at the movie theatre? Same again. Columbine? All were from small affluent families.

      There’s probably something to be said for families with several children. It’s hard to live in bizarro isolation when there’s a bunch of siblings.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 16:48

      Norway had a gun massacre?

      Unpossible. They have strict gun control.

    • Tim Starr on December 17, 2012 at 10:37

      Not that strict. There’s lots of hunting there, and Brevik got his guns legally. There’s just not much of a culture of self-defense there. Norway’s not tightened up its gun laws much in the aftermath of that shooting, either.

  30. josef on December 15, 2012 at 13:09

    Has anyone noticed that we never see psychopath mass killings in the ‘hood or the barrio?

    Is it because the ‘hood and barrio are relatively crime free zones?

    Or is it because the brothers and amigos are well armed and will not put up with that nonsense?

    Think about it!

    • Todd on December 15, 2012 at 13:53

      Perhaps not a mass killing all at once, but in one of the hoods where I live there is a shooting, fatal or not, almost every day. It’s a slow mass killing. I get your point though.

    • Contemplationist on December 15, 2012 at 19:32

      Sorry the hood is a crime saturated zone. Do check out crime stats by census district map.

  31. Peggy the Primal Parent on December 15, 2012 at 13:17

    I have wondered how I should raise my child in a land of morons and pussies as you would say. Do I pretend like everything is ok, give her the fantastic, consumerist childhood that I had, only to emerge weak, clueless, and gullible? That’s precious, but no.

    A great childhood I can give her but not laced in ignorance and lies.

    If this ever happens in my daughter’s school, she’ll be the one underneath the desk organizing the counter attack.

    Good post Richard. 911 is indeed useless. I have quite a bit of experience with false sense of security it provides. Unfortunately, our neighbors are generally useless too. Eliminate 911 and our community might just be worth something again…

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 13:19

      Peggy is a victim of a home invasion. Don’t think it can’t happen to you.

    • marie on December 15, 2012 at 20:03

      Well now, fancy that, so have I.
      In my case, as I stated earlier, the home security system’s calling 911 worked like a charm. Also, the guys were armed, which we know because they were caught a few blocks away, as I mentioned above.
      Cherry picking our anecdotals?
      All this says of course, is that in some places police/911 works well and in others it doesn’t.
      So how about we look at where it does work well? Where response time is under 4 minutes – because in most home invasions, burglary is the objective and so minutes are what count, such that police can actually be useful.
      What kind of community do I live in? A small town in a well populated corridor in western/upstate NY. Here the cops are integrated, they are our neighbors and friends, the kids go to school together and our local taxes pay the police salaries.
      Oh, wait, that sounds a hell of a lot like the kind of private force ‘anarchic’ communities might hire.
      It’s not a new concept. Lots of places like this around here, so I can’t imagine we’re alone across the country either.
      But sure, throw away the baby with the bath water.
      Townships like mine are exactly the precursors of the type of ‘anarchy at home’ you talk about.
      We completely pay for our own teachers, schools and athletic facilities (so No one takes my kids’ lunch, nice side-benefit), pay for our local road clearing, private garbage collection, private and very wide choice of power suppliers and more. No one set out to make it a model, it just evolved that way. It’s not even considered unusual around here, many towns like this.
      So unless you’re in a remote rural area where distances are just too large for community services to work, how about everyone else complaining about police and schools and the big bad government just Fix Your Own Back-Yards?
      You can whine all you want, or you can pay for it and get involved and make it work for you and yours.
      No amount of statistics will drive someone’s life if they’re Not in the statistical norm, no theories nor learned analyses. They apply to ‘the average’ – don’t be!
      There IS a big bad government, but people have power in their own communities to make it much less relevant to them.
      In other words, put up or shut the fuck up.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 23:32

      Got it. 911 worked for you. Disarm people.

      I’m not interested in reading your prescriptions for peple based upon your proscriptions for others.

    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 09:35

      I do not say disarm people, anywhere in any thread or any of our conversations. Don’t put words in my mouth.
      I make a reasonable distinction between most guns and weapons of mass murder, that is, hunting rifles and hand-guns vs.semi-automatics. We ban other weapons of mass murder, why not semi-automatics? It’s a way to limit the damage that these lunatics can do. They are not seasoned criminals or gang-members who can get them anyway, usually they are getting them from home and friends.
      It’s at least as TBD as your idea that more armed citizens would be stopping some of these shooters.That’s all. But it’s not out there on either extreme, so you don’t want to engage that, fine. But don’t put words in my mouth.
      As for prescriptions, what’s wrong with building a self-sustaining community, where you can rely on 911, not to mention all other services, and still keep your guns?(most people around here have hunting rifles, great deer hunting area). Oh, I forgot, it’s wrong based on the words You put in my mouth.
      Getting a little blind with your fervor here.
      Γνωθι σ’αυτον.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 10:49

      Ridiculous. You have no idea, do you, what human havoc one can wreak with a pump action shotgun in close quarters? Saw off the barrel, even more.

      I can’t even think of an instance where banning anything ever accomplishes anything.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 10:51

      And while we’re at it, how about we ban fertilizer, diesel fuel, 55 gallon drums and moving trucks.


    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 11:18

      Ridiculous, you’ve had much success buying plutonium have you?
      Finally you deign to address my main point after I keep asking you to in all of these discussions and after putting words in my mouth – you’ll understand if I am a wee bit worn out.
      Really, fertilizer? Sure, because even though it’s readily available that’s what these mentally deranged “kids” Don’t use. This isn’t about terrorism any more than it was about home protection. We’re at an impasse.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 14:26

      “Ridiculous, you’ve had much success buying plutonium have you?”

      Yet another “bazooka” argument. Plutonium is more valuable than diamonds. I don’t see that becoming a problem, nor Stingers that are like a million bucks, fighter jets and tanks in the many millions, etc.

      RPGs are pretty cheap though, about $100 per round. Probably cheaper and easier to improvise an explosive device. It takes firing quite a few RPG rounds for someone to get proficient at targeting and that would probably attract significant attention on a number of levels.

      “Really, fertilizer? Sure, because even though it’s readily available that’s what these mentally deranged “kids” Don’t use.”

      I guess Oklahoma City doesn’t ring a bell. Why they don’t go that route—in spite of the common link that they all seem to possess high raw intelligence—is anyone’s guess. I suppose it’s because if they intend to kill themselves in the aftermath, they want their body to be there, not disintegrated, they want to perpetuate the terror of a shooter on scene (a bomb kills most of its victims in a flash). Etc.

      But go ahead and ban the semi-auto guns, then perhaps they will resort to IEDs.

      Of course, a ban will accomplish nothing. Companies all over the earth manufacture semi-auto weapons, then can be sold in parts and assembled later and, it’s actually not that difficult to machine weapons. There are thousands of machine shops in the US.

      And then there’s 3D printing, just around the corner with already a successful printing of a gun and successful firing of 6 shots.

      Banning something NEVER works. Never.

      And it doesn’t even matter.

      “Myth 3: Incidents of mass murder are increasing

      “When a mass murder occurs, it receives instant and pervasive news coverage. Unfortunately, we are prone to overestimate the frequency of an event by its prominence in our minds, and mass murder is no exception. This is a very rare phenomenon and is neither increasing nor decreasing in the US. Since 1976 there have been about 20 mass murders a year. 2003 was the most violent year for mass murder, with 30 incidents and 135 victims. Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Edmund Oklahoma, and San Ysidro still resonate in the public consciousness, however, reminding us that these events do happen. A positive counterpoint is that rates of all violent crime have significantly decreased over this same time period, from 48 victims per 1000 persons in 1976 to 15 victims in 2010. The most lethal school mass murder in US history was in Bath, Michigan, in 1927, a bombing that resulted in 45 deaths, mostly children in the second to sixth grades.”

      The real thing to note is that in spite of the fact that a big percentage of the guns people own are semi-auto handguns (they used to be quite expensive) as a percentage of overall gun ownership, violence has decreased by 2/3 since the late 70s.

      I attribute that to greater wealth and opportunity.

      You want to fix this? You’ll never fix the totally random but the general fix has already been going on for decades. Opportunity, wealth, etc.

      Get rid of child labor laws and minimum wage laws so that kids who aren’t yet worth $8 or whatever it is per hour can get regular jobs.

      I recall being in Puerto Vallarta some years back and we went to a big grocery store (a nice one). All the baggers were children, I’d say 8-10 on average. All clean cut, girls in red skirts, boys in slacks, white shirt, tie and red sport coat. Adorable. They radiated pride in themselves.

      Ultimately, that’s the only real solution.

    • Joseph on December 18, 2012 at 08:40

      It might get a few loons to stop pestering you for a bit (until another unexpected encounter with reality shatters the beautiful utopia in their minds and they are rabidly demanding the disarmament of the entire species).

    • Elenor on December 16, 2012 at 07:28

      Do you just not GET how completely “unreasonable” your lifestyle and community ARE in this country?! Have you ever lived in a real city? Do you have section-8 projects surrounding your neighborhood? (Do you even know what section 8 is?) Is your lovely bucolic town in ANY way normal for this country, for the vast majority of folks?

      (Do you really believe that *calling 911* made those guys run away — or was it the loud noise your alarm system made? If you had hidden in your closet and silently dialed 911, do you think they would have run away? Do you believe that someone who cannot afford an alarm system would be as randomly lucky? What if the police had been busy at a huge traffic accident? Still okay with you that you had no protection of your own?)

    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 10:08

      Exactly Elenor. They left when they heard the noise, but as I put it originally in a thread further up, not in order to protect their tender ears but because they knew the cops would be there in minutes. It is exactly the kind of situation where minutes counts and where police can help.
      As for the cost, it’s $29 dollars a month and so the majority can afford it in a country where the median household income is $50,100. Not to mention it pays for itself with lower home insurance cost.
      Now, I don’t blame you for assuming I don’t want or keep guns, because of Richard’s comment, but most people here do and so do I. For exactly the kind of back-up you’re talking about.
      It’s so much better not to have to rely on just one tool though, don’t you think?
      Whose to say that if I didn’t have an alarm I would have woken up at all? It was 2am. They could have poisoned or knocked-out my dogs downstairs, I sleep like a baby. What ideas would they have gotten seeing my teen-age doughter asleep? Does everyone who thinks to protect themselves solely with their guns sleep with half-eye open at night? Do you?
      It’s not randomly lucky, by the way, that police response was so fast, it’s choosing where you live and then working at making it work.
      Which brings me to your big cities. Yes, i grew up in big cities, and later enjoyed the heck out of Montreal and Manhattan when I was in my 20’s. Now, Montreal has neighborhoods and a live city centre and services that rival what I have in this little town – yes, the cops there too pick-up bleery-eyed students leaving the libraries at night during exam season in -10F weather and give them a lift home -but that’s Canada for you, a different kettle of fish. Now, bucolic this place is not, it’s 20′ from a major city. We do have subsidized housing right in this town, but you’re right, it doesn’t ‘surround’ any neighborhood. Then again, the town planned it that way.
      Look, you can complain about your city, but if you think the problems are too big for even local improvements in your own neighborhood (neighborhood watches and community self-reliance happens in many cities, for example) and if you value your lifestyle more than whatever is keeping you there, then you move. Most people who live here made similar choices.
      Just a few years ago I turned down a good opportunity in NYC and chose to take a lower-paying job near here so that I wouldn’t have to live with a family in NYC. Unless of course someone is tied to a job at their location because of a criminal record or some disability, something that means they are lucky to have the job they do and can’t find another one. That’s sad, but it’s not the majority. Everyone else makes choices. What do you value most? If not a better lifestyle, then there’s no reason to complain, is there?

    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 11:31

      Elenor, if you get over your incredulity that such places exist and what that tells you about what is possible (what can-do people Can do ) you can find such towns and communities in any of the ‘best places to live’ lists that are frequently published – they are mostly all over the northerns states, maybe there’s the ‘cold’ factor at play, like people suspect is at play for Canada and the Scandinavian countries. It’s the factor that say you have a shovel, icepick and salt bag in your trunk in the winter, to help yourself or your neighbor, while building up local services that you pay for, they are yours, so you have more support if you need it.
      The cops here will stop and take you into their car to keep you warm while you wait for a tow truck to pull you out of that snow-covered ditch. It’s the factor that says everyone at home has a generator, but hey we better pay to bury as many of our power lines as we can. It’s the factor that has my neighbors taking turns to snow-plow my driveway when I’m away at christmas so that the home doesn’t look empty, no request or thanks needed, I do the same in the summer with lawn mowing for others.
      The fire department is wholly voluntary, even a new building 6 years ago was bought through fundraisers and donations. It’s that kind of self-sufficiency, applied to individuals and their immediate communities, that seems to work well….maybe it’s the cold that creates the impulse, or maybe it’s just that can-do kinds of people move or stay here, all others shiver too much or never took to skiing 🙂

  32. Kris on December 15, 2012 at 15:45

    Haven’t read all the comments but a few thoughts –
    First of all, 3 guns were registered to the mother, 2 to the father. Shooter was only 20 years old so could not have gotten a permit.
    He supposedly was diagnosed autistic.
    Autistic kids could likely be given ADD medications, some of which are likened to methamphetamines, causing impulsivity, anxiety, anger and depression.
    There are many degrees of mental illness.
    There are not necessarily tell tail signs to mental illness. I know someone who impulsively committed suicide without a clue to everyone who knew him. He was a functioning, successful pleasant individual.

  33. Contemplationist on December 15, 2012 at 19:16

    For those arguing about mental health, please for Zeus’s sake, read this interview with the brilliant scholar Tom Szasz :

    Note that he argues for personal responsibility, which means he is against nonsense like the ‘insanity defense.’ People can wish for anything including unicorns and rivers of milk and wine but they’ll remain wishes. Wishes must confront the nature of reality. Note the pathetic quote by the Virginia Tech spokesman on the defeat of the bill to allow concealed carry holders to carry on campus – “[the defeat] will help people feel safe.” It’s all about the _feelings_ not reality. Just like the ass-gropers of the TSA excellent in security theatre since 2002.
    Whatever your wishes, you must confront reality.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 15, 2012 at 23:02


      Nice to see that some of the usuals retain their absolute allegiance to reality.

  34. v on December 16, 2012 at 06:54

    as a teacher i can say that no teacher should be hired unless they demonstrate competence with and are willing to strap on an AK-47 at all times. Actually, when they are bending down to tie shows and wipe noses, an AK might get in the way. a shoulder holster glock in that case would be sufficient.

    • LeonRover on December 16, 2012 at 08:34

      Yeah, right V; that is fine for Elementary.

      However, if three husky 15 year-olds try to corner you, are you about to riddle them with your AK-47 ?? (or Glock)

      Hey, what about them Uzis !!!

      BTW, I loved the novel V –

      “V. is the debut novel of Thomas Pynchon, published in 1963. It describes the exploits of a discharged U.S. Navy sailor named Benny Profane, his reconnection in New York with a group of pseudo-bohemian artists and hangers-on known as the Whole Sick Crew . . . “

    • v on December 16, 2012 at 15:33

      you knew i was being sarcastic right? head over to wooo’s where i put up a sarcasm alert on the same comment.

      i don’t want to read about sailors. ew. v is the first letter of my name which means truth or faith. i’ll take the truth part and leave out the faith- except for faith in some of my closest.

  35. v on December 16, 2012 at 06:59

    do you know if my school district it is mandatory during an active shooter drill that we slip colored cards under the door into the hallway? this is a sign to law enforcement that “green” means everyone is accounted for and “red” means someone is injured or was out of the room for some reason (bathroom, etc.). they don’t tell us to barricade the door or try to exit through a window. the librarian in CT did not follow procedure and so probably increased their chances of survival had the shooter walked by the library. instead of going against a wall not in sight of the windows, they went into a storage room, locked the door and barricaded it with filing cabinets.

    • Tim Starr on December 16, 2012 at 21:55

      Great! That way the shooter will know which rooms still have defenseless prey in them…

  36. v on December 16, 2012 at 07:48

    from abc news:

    “But Crane founded ALICE because he believed there was something wrong with the lock down-only policies in most schools.

    “We’ve taught a generation of Americans to be passive and static and wait for police,” said Crane, whose wife was an elementary school principal in Texas at the time of the Columbine attack.

    “We don’t recommend just locking a door because locked doors have been defeated before,” Crane said. “Try to make yourself as hard a target as possible.”

    ALICE argues students and teachers should not be passive and that they should improvise. He even suggests they throw things are their attacker.”

    my husband who has street smarts told me that if you can’t run from a dangerous situation, pick up something to throw at an oncoming attacker and yell to scare them. once he was held up by knife point in new york. he is chinese and the stereotype is that asians are easy marks. anyway, he ran back got a bottle in dumpster and threw it at the guy yelling the only english curse he knew at the time. the guy turned and ran. it was better than being knifed. we are taught to be passive.

  37. Simon Carter on December 16, 2012 at 13:53

    What can be done for this woman and her insane 13 year old boy?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 16, 2012 at 13:57

      I have no idea, but I’d recommend steering clear.

    • Simon Carter on December 16, 2012 at 14:19

      If this kid and her crazy, violent son was my next door neighbor I think I would have to look for an opportunity to be proactive.

    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 15:27

      Inspire her community to develop services like these? :

      or this famous one in the mental health area :

      or…there are more, local, community-based programs that are effective for both the patients and their families.
      At least, there’s evidence that local communities can do things like this, while there’s no evidence to justify advocating for support by a massive centralized system for 300+million people.
      If people turn their eyes back to their own communities and not keep looking to big government to help them, maybe they can make somethings work for them. Maybe. When that’s the only evidence there is, I’d go for it….

    • Kris on December 17, 2012 at 06:17

      All violence probably stems from anger and difficulty handling frustration. A mentally ill child may not have an innate sense of right and wrong, good and evil. And it would be very scary if he might be taking cues from tv, movies and video games, which this boy probably has. These children need to learn ways to deal with their frustration, obviously the major challenge for this young man.

      Unfortunately, the mother seems to have engaged in a power struggle with her son. Using the ‘mental hospital’ as a threat of some sort of punishment to her son, leaves him little chance of using this venue in the future as a means to get well, or seeing professional help as a positive. So sad… I know it must be extremely difficult for parents of these children, and I certainly don’t mean to imply that these situations are the parent’s fault, but expertise in handling these troubled kids while the child is testing boundaries and forming values, are probably just as important as the child getting professional help. Perhaps that is where the answer lies.

  38. v on December 16, 2012 at 15:52

    re better treatment for mentally ill, not just warehousing in jail: my nephew who has been diagnosed bipolar, ADHD etc. went to jail for 2.5 years after he knifed several people after being jumped. what complicated his case was it happened months after he had gone through marine basic training and had bought a long knife where it is legal to do so in north carolina. they didn’t care that it was self-defense and that he was jumped by 4 people. he took a plea deal to avoid the gamble of getting 20 years. while in jail he fought other inmates while the guards gambled on who would win. he’s out now and seems to be doing better- god only knows how…and yes, still better to steer clear of him.

  39. g on December 16, 2012 at 18:44

    If your defenseless without a gun, your a moron. Level thinking and some training goes much further than a pistol (had a couple of them pulled on me through the years). Killings like these are not dependent on firearms for the killings themselves nor for there resolution. Its societal pressure building for all of the reasons that are clear. Same stuff is going on in China and here and there in the world. Anytime and within any culture the pressure builds to high….

  40. Cow on December 16, 2012 at 18:57

    Nobody seem to want to address root problem. Human pretty much only species with ‘mental illness’. (Excepting domesticated animals that made batshit crazy by humans.) Yes, I understands is some case of truly organic brain illnesses, but these is quite rare. Human has evolve into species that have enormous number of unstable minded beings. What is remedy? I think is none, but I hoping I wrong. Until then, I pray you gods or Cymbalta can helps you.

    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 19:13

      Cow, also maybe is like you in Hollywood, crazy outside of your natural environment? Humans not living in their natural environments, few large family groups, few tribes, few communities and most humans are even worse-off than domesticated animals, they’re born zoo animals and can’t imagine life outside the bars.

    • Cow on December 16, 2012 at 19:34

      Is exact what I saying Marie, human is FUBAR, and frankly, I no think you reverse this even if you could. If Great Oz shows up tomorrow and say, okay, I make you balance minded creature and alls you has to give up is you computer and you Diet Coke, peoples would be like, fuck you Great Oz, no fucking way!

    • marie on December 16, 2012 at 19:56

      Oh Cow, I’m afraid that is wise prediction. The Diet Coke especially, would have to pull it out of peoples fat, arthritic, cold, dead hands.

  41. Remnant on December 17, 2012 at 01:18

    Some choice quotes in the following link, some of which sound almost Nickolian:

    “Ask them this: If guns, and not people, kill people, why don’t they first disarm the more heavily armed government and police people before trying to disarm the public?

    “Ask them this: How does it make any sense to disarm the public and leave the government armed when over the last 100 years, governments around the world, including the U.S. federal government, have killed vastly more people in time of peace than all of the private murders in the world combined?

    “Ask them this: 800,000 law enforcement officers have killed 525 unarmed citizens with guns so far this year. Approximately 310 million private citizens killed an estimated 10,500 of their fellow citizens with guns over the same period of time. Given that a law enforcement officer is 19.4 times more likely to shoot and kill an unarmed American than a private citizen, if you genuinely care about reducing gun deaths, why aren’t you calling for the disarmament of law enforcement?”

  42. Jesrad on December 17, 2012 at 06:01

    I looked up the word in this page but couldn’t find it, so I’ll assume it’s not been mentioned yet: the killer was a strict vegan for moral reasons. Who wants to bet this had nuuuthing to do with his having messed up brains ?

  43. Jasen on December 17, 2012 at 12:36

    This post is exactly how I have been thinking and feeling for years. It’s good to know there are still real men in this country although the number is getting smaller by the day.

  44. […] plans. For me, this sort of thing demands immediate social discourse, so that's what I did. Don’t Worry: When Seconds Count, the Cops Are Only Minutes Away. For those uninterested in this debate and discussion, no quarrel with you. Regular programming […]

  45. Cops, and guns. | The Beast Within on December 19, 2012 at 10:14

    […] is known for blogging about “ancestral lifestyles”2, is also an avid libertarian whose recent diatribe against law enforcement serves as a perfect example of irresponsibility. In short, Nikoley attempts […]

  46. […] a lot like what I've been saying here and here, and today was the first I've ever heard of Pratt or the […]

  47. Bob L on December 21, 2012 at 12:24

    For protection from animals like this:

  48. […] to my surprise, however, I learned that my initial idea in my first post (Don’t Worry: When Seconds Count, the Cops Are Only Minutes Away—a phrase he uses in his essay), that willing and able teachers and administrators ought to be […]

  49. Dr. Curmudgon Gee on December 24, 2012 at 19:37

    great title

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k