chaotic_nipple

I mean it too. First, listening to the jackasses voice, it's pretty clear he has a moderate speak impairment. While it _would_ be caused by any number of things, it sounds a lot like the typical "can't hear how his own voice sounds" accent of a hearing impaired person. So I wonder, if it turns out he _was_ hearing impaired, you think that the Deaf community will be scape-goated? Just a thought.

Second, armed students, or any other bystanders, would not necessarily have been able to stop him. While I disagree with bradhicks unequivocal assertion that it absolutely wouldn't have helped, I think he has several good points right here. He neglects to address the whole "deterrance" argument, though, but that's OK, because deterrence DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER when you're dealing with someone who _wants_ to die. If enough students and faculty had guns to make him seriously reconsider his plan, he would have just sniped from a rooftop instead, and could easily have killed just as many people.

Now, personally I support concealed carry, but it's not a damned panacea. All else being equal, more guns in the hands of college students _will_ result in more accidental shootings, and more impulsive 'crimes of passion'. If you go to the absolute extreme of _requiring_ everyone carry a gun, you would probably have 32 accidental deaths every freaking year on a campus that size. Obviously, like anything else in society, there has to be a balance. While I personally think it would be beneficial to tip that balance further towards responsible citizens being able to carry, how about us gun-lovers _not_ insult people's intelligence by pretending there won't ever be any negative consequences to this trade-off?

Also, what is it with "freedom loving Americans" insisting that we'd be better off if we just institutionalized all the "crazies"? Oh, sure, this particular crazy should have been, but what about all those thousands of maladjusted loners who _won't_ ever commit any crimes? In order to be sure of getting all the future shooters, you'd have to preemptively imprison countless creepy innocents. How is that just? Again, there has to be a balance, and this one I _don't_ favor changing too much. Obviously, we need more treatment options for mentally ill people who _want_ help, but no one should be forcibly treated unless they are a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to others, which, sadly, this one wasn't clear enough to justify.

Finally, despite what certain right-wing jackals loudly proclaim, there were heroes on that day. Teachers and students alike tried to stand up to their murderer. They died just the same. That's what happens when unarmed people go up against someone who is armed. That's why their courage deserves our recognition, and to HELL with the scum who denigrate it.

I get to spend the next week and a half spoiling nieces. 5 hours on planes and in airports, how fun. Somehow, I think it would be a bad idea to bring The Poor Man's James Bond as reading material...

Is Scotland. And it's official!

I particularely liked the part where it said:

"Detective Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the Strathclyde Police’s violence reduction unit, said the problem was chronic and restricting access to drink and limiting the sale of knives would at least reduce the problem."

Because confiscating all the guns worked SOOO well. Imagine the violence levels if everyone was still packing heat! :-P

-Forwarded from Warren Ellis:

"It occurs to me that an awful lot of trouble in Gotham City could have been averted a long time ago if Batman had just ripped the Joker’s nipples off.

I mean, treatment doesn’t work, does it? They stick the Joker in the nuthatch, he comes out again and does the same things.

A man with the nipples ripped off him does not make the same mistakes twice.

Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and need the nipples ripped off them.

I mean, who’s going to argue?"

-Forwarded from http://www.livejournal.com/users/byzantine_ruins/216250.html

From The BBC:
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.