Ohio school gunman kills self, wounds 4

[natty bumppo 297]

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

I'll let you research that one ...

Back to our earlier discussion ... driving drunk is intentional ... and killing someone while drunk driving is intentional.

Using the resturant alcohol and guns thought ....

guns and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

cars and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

Let's see ...

1) left hand grab drink (think gun) ... bring drink to mouth (think pick-up gun) ... consume drink (think load gun) ...

2) repeat drink consumption process (think fully load the gun)

3) after drinking, get in car and drive home and point a 3,000+ lb rapidly moving object at people (think point loaded gun a people)

4) accidently hit and kill someone with car while drunk (think accidently pull trigger on gun and kill someone)

both are intentional acts. they took a thought process to enable the final outcome to happen

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

I'll let you research that one ...

Back to our earlier discussion ... driving drunk is intentional ... and killing someone while drunk driving is intentional.

Using the resturant alcohol and guns thought ....

guns and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

cars and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

Let's see ...

1) left hand grab drink (think gun) ... bring drink to mouth (think pick-up gun) ... consume drink (think load gun) ...

2) repeat drink consumption process (think fully load the gun)

3) after drinking, get in car and drive home and point a 3,000+ lb rapidly moving object at people (think point loaded gun a people)

4) accidently hit and kill someone with car while drunk (think accidently pull trigger on gun and kill someone)

both are intentional acts. they took a thought process to enable the final outcome to happen

Again you're relativising. That's ok - just call it what it is. By that rationale I might as well say that any concious human act is the same - whether it be getting up for work in the morning, ordering a Starbucks Latte, or committing murder. You need a thought process for all of those. So sorry - you can't fool me with that one. As I said - trying to confound this argument with existentialism is really rather phony.

If I have too many drinks in a bar, don't know my limit and decide to drive - in doing so I run someone over - that is ultimately the result of negligence (i.e. I didn't intend for it to happen).

If I get up in the morning with the intent of going to school or work and pumping round after round into colleagues, friends and co-workers, that is intentional and pre-meditated.

Yet again - very different. Even if the end result is the same.

[natty bumppo 297]

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

I'll let you research that one ...

Back to our earlier discussion ... driving drunk is intentional ... and killing someone while drunk driving is intentional.

Using the resturant alcohol and guns thought ....

guns and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

cars and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

Let's see ...

1) left hand grab drink (think gun) ... bring drink to mouth (think pick-up gun) ... consume drink (think load gun) ...

2) repeat drink consumption process (think fully load the gun)

3) after drinking, get in car and drive home and point a 3,000+ lb rapidly moving object at people (think point loaded gun a people)

4) accidently hit and kill someone with car while drunk (think accidently pull trigger on gun and kill someone)

both are intentional acts. they took a thought process to enable the final outcome to happen

Again you're relativising. That's ok - just call it what it is. By that rationale I might as well say that any concious human act is the same - whether it be getting up for work in the morning, ordering a Starbucks Latte, or committing murder. You need a thought process for all of those. So sorry - you can't fool me with that one. As I said - trying to confound this argument with existentialism is really rather phony.

If I have too many drinks in a bar, don't know my limit and decide to drive - in doing so I run someone over - that is ultimately the result of negligence (i.e. I didn't intend for it to happen).

If I get up in the morning with the intent of going to school or work and pumping round after round into colleagues, friends and co-workers, that is intentional and pre-meditated.

Yet again - very different. Even if the end result is the same.

Ah ... what a world .... in both examples ... you intentionally consumed. in example #1 you ordered the drinks ...and you drank (loaded the gun) (just like #2)

then you drove and kill someone. you intentionally drove the car (unless the act of driving a vehicle is unintentional ).

btw: in either case it might be called vehicular manslaughter

(i'm no legal expert ... contact your attorney for proper guidance on how you would handle the charges filed)

so ... use a gun to intentionally kill somone(s) or intentionally drive drunk and kill someone(s). both are criminal acts ... only one doesn't get as much media splash.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

I'll let you research that one ...

Back to our earlier discussion ... driving drunk is intentional ... and killing someone while drunk driving is intentional.

Using the resturant alcohol and guns thought ....

guns and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

cars and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

Let's see ...

1) left hand grab drink (think gun) ... bring drink to mouth (think pick-up gun) ... consume drink (think load gun) ...

2) repeat drink consumption process (think fully load the gun)

3) after drinking, get in car and drive home and point a 3,000+ lb rapidly moving object at people (think point loaded gun a people)

4) accidently hit and kill someone with car while drunk (think accidently pull trigger on gun and kill someone)

both are intentional acts. they took a thought process to enable the final outcome to happen

Again you're relativising. That's ok - just call it what it is. By that rationale I might as well say that any concious human act is the same - whether it be getting up for work in the morning, ordering a Starbucks Latte, or committing murder. You need a thought process for all of those. So sorry - you can't fool me with that one. As I said - trying to confound this argument with existentialism is really rather phony.

If I have too many drinks in a bar, don't know my limit and decide to drive - in doing so I run someone over - that is ultimately the result of negligence (i.e. I didn't intend for it to happen).

If I get up in the morning with the intent of going to school or work and pumping round after round into colleagues, friends and co-workers, that is intentional and pre-meditated.

Yet again - very different. Even if the end result is the same.

Ah ... what a world .... in both examples ... you intentionally consumed. in example #1 you ordered the drinks ...and you drank (loaded the gun) (just like #2)

then you drove and kill someone. you intentionally drove the car (unless the act of driving a vehicle is unintentional ).

btw: in either case it might be called vehicular manslaughter

(i'm no legal expert ... contact your attorney for proper guidance on how you would handle the charges filed)

so ... use a gun to intentionally kill somone(s) or intentionally drive drunk and kill someone(s). both are criminal acts ... only one doesn't get as much media splash.

I didn't say they weren't both criminal acts. Only that a comparison between a mass murder perpetrated by a maniac to a drink-drive fatality is rather shoddy.

Again there's no legitimate comparison between someone who kills out of misadventure and negligence to someone who planned to do it through malicious intent. None whatsoever - unless you have more relative, wishy-washy philosophy to subject me to.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

I'll let you research that one ...

Back to our earlier discussion ... driving drunk is intentional ... and killing someone while drunk driving is intentional.

Using the resturant alcohol and guns thought ....

guns and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

cars and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

Let's see ...

1) left hand grab drink (think gun) ... bring drink to mouth (think pick-up gun) ... consume drink (think load gun) ...

2) repeat drink consumption process (think fully load the gun)

3) after drinking, get in car and drive home and point a 3,000+ lb rapidly moving object at people (think point loaded gun a people)

4) accidently hit and kill someone with car while drunk (think accidently pull trigger on gun and kill someone)

both are intentional acts. they took a thought process to enable the final outcome to happen

Again you're relativising. That's ok - just call it what it is. By that rationale I might as well say that any concious human act is the same - whether it be getting up for work in the morning, ordering a Starbucks Latte, or committing murder. You need a thought process for all of those. So sorry - you can't fool me with that one. As I said - trying to confound this argument with existentialism is really rather phony.

If I have too many drinks in a bar, don't know my limit and decide to drive - in doing so I run someone over - that is ultimately the result of negligence (i.e. I didn't intend for it to happen).

If I get up in the morning with the intent of going to school or work and pumping round after round into colleagues, friends and co-workers, that is intentional and pre-meditated.

Yet again - very different. Even if the end result is the same.

Ah ... what a world .... in both examples ... you intentionally consumed. in example #1 you ordered the drinks ...and you drank (loaded the gun) (just like #2)

then you drove and kill someone. you intentionally drove the car (unless the act of driving a vehicle is unintentional ).

btw: in either case it might be called vehicular manslaughter

(i'm no legal expert ... contact your attorney for proper guidance on how you would handle the charges filed)

so ... use a gun to intentionally kill somone(s) or intentionally drive drunk and kill someone(s). both are criminal acts ... only one doesn't get as much media splash.

I didn't say they weren't both criminal acts. Only that a comparison between a mass murder perpetrated by a maniac to a drink-drive fatality is rather shoddy.

Again there's no legitimate comparison between someone who kills out of misadventure and negligence to someone who planned to do it through malicious intent. None whatsoever - unless you have more relative, wishy-washy philosophy to subject me to.

in example #1 ... why did you go to the bar ?? to drink ? maybe?

mass murder in drunk driving ... get drunk ... drive ... and hit a few car loads of people while you are speeding at 70 mph ... and the result is ... you live because you were drunk and relaxed ... the 8 occupants of the two cars you destroyed because you were driving drunk are all killed.

that's not mass murder ?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

let's see ... the grocery store around the corner permits chl (Kroger, HEB, etc) ... and people do work there ... yes? how is the company protecting it's employees from people who legally chl ? Or better yet ... how is the company protecting it's employees from people illegally chl?

Next time I go to the store, I'll make an extra effort to look for the armed guard ... or police officer ... or grocery store employee .... that is there to protect me and others

Does the grocery store permit its employees to chl on the job?

Restaurants have rules that prohibit people taking their guns onto the premises, specifically where alcohol is served. I went to a steak house in Texas a few years ago which had signage to that effect.

Again - you can relativise this to death and find half a hundred different examples. It doesn't make it a universal truth, however you want to spin it.

I'll let you research that one ...

Back to our earlier discussion ... driving drunk is intentional ... and killing someone while drunk driving is intentional.

Using the resturant alcohol and guns thought ....

guns and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

cars and alcohol don't mix ... why? maybe because people can be hurt?

Let's see ...

1) left hand grab drink (think gun) ... bring drink to mouth (think pick-up gun) ... consume drink (think load gun) ...

2) repeat drink consumption process (think fully load the gun)

3) after drinking, get in car and drive home and point a 3,000+ lb rapidly moving object at people (think point loaded gun a people)

4) accidently hit and kill someone with car while drunk (think accidently pull trigger on gun and kill someone)

both are intentional acts. they took a thought process to enable the final outcome to happen

Again you're relativising. That's ok - just call it what it is. By that rationale I might as well say that any concious human act is the same - whether it be getting up for work in the morning, ordering a Starbucks Latte, or committing murder. You need a thought process for all of those. So sorry - you can't fool me with that one. As I said - trying to confound this argument with existentialism is really rather phony.

If I have too many drinks in a bar, don't know my limit and decide to drive - in doing so I run someone over - that is ultimately the result of negligence (i.e. I didn't intend for it to happen).

If I get up in the morning with the intent of going to school or work and pumping round after round into colleagues, friends and co-workers, that is intentional and pre-meditated.

Yet again - very different. Even if the end result is the same.

Ah ... what a world .... in both examples ... you intentionally consumed. in example #1 you ordered the drinks ...and you drank (loaded the gun) (just like #2)

then you drove and kill someone. you intentionally drove the car (unless the act of driving a vehicle is unintentional ).

btw: in either case it might be called vehicular manslaughter

(i'm no legal expert ... contact your attorney for proper guidance on how you would handle the charges filed)

so ... use a gun to intentionally kill somone(s) or intentionally drive drunk and kill someone(s). both are criminal acts ... only one doesn't get as much media splash.

I didn't say they weren't both criminal acts. Only that a comparison between a mass murder perpetrated by a maniac to a drink-drive fatality is rather shoddy.

Again there's no legitimate comparison between someone who kills out of misadventure and negligence to someone who planned to do it through malicious intent. None whatsoever - unless you have more relative, wishy-washy philosophy to subject me to.

in example #1 ... why did you go to the bar ?? to drink ? maybe?

mass murder in drunk driving ... get drunk ... drive ... and hit a few car loads of people while you are speeding at 70 mph ... and the result is ... you live because you were drunk and relaxed ... the 8 occupants of the two cars you destroyed because you were driving drunk are all killed.

that's not mass murder ?

In the sense that the person who did it probably didn't intend to end his night that way - no. He killed people out of irresponsibility and negligence - not out of malicious intent. Keep spinning, it still doesn't make it comparable.

[Sinergy 3]

yay im so glad i didnt get involved in this

[SMOKE 1,426]

once again, like every topic on VJ its POV & opinion. & noone is changing anyones mind.

[natty bumppo 297]

In the sense that the person who did it probably didn't intend to end his night that way - no. He killed people out of irresponsibility and negligence - not out of malicious intent. Keep spinning, it still doesn't make it comparable.

the person used the gun at school to kill ... did it with intent to kill. a person driving drunk ... did it with the intent to drive drunk knowing this act will kill too. Could be that being killed by another human being after that person makes a series of intentional choices ... is something to think about.

given the amount of knowledge and messaging about drinking and driving ... how could it be called .... intentionally getting drunk and intentionally driving ... negligence?

For both cases (guns and drunk driving) it comes down to the person causing the issue and being a responsible person who respects life and rules of safe conduct.

Where does the responsibility for your actions start/ stop?

In killing another human being ... using a gun ... it's been said it's your responsibility. It is also your responsibility for getting drunk and driving (after all you are the person who got loaded and went off).

No matter how it's spun ... both are willful acts. In both cases the target can live (poor shot placement or managed to drive safely) or the target can die.

[Nessa 23]

dang, took me the entire morning to read this thread while working, of course.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

dang, took me the entire morning to read this thread while working, of course.

we shall all strive to keep up this standard of excellence in the future

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not supposed to worry when someone who is meant to be a responsible gun owner cannot see the difference between drunk driving and willfully shooting a gun at other people?

By your logic, I don't see how you need a gun if you have a car.

Yes, we all know that drunk driving is wrong, even terribly wrong. We all know that cars in the wrong hands are dangerous and should be driven responsibly. They are not however weapons, no matter how often you spin it that way. Guns are. Guns are lethal weapons designed to kill. Their express purpose is to kill. They have no other function other than to kill. You can spin the 'oh, but guns are harmless, nothing more than a deterrent until they are pointed at a felon' argument until the cows come home but it doesn't change what guns are.

Of course, there are guns that are less harmful than others when fired by incompetent shooters. Some need a high degree of skill to kill something with, some just need the person to point and shoot and bingo, lots of people die.

In relation with this thread though. Personally, I don't think that one can totally blame the availability of guns to this kind of incident. Clearly this child was mentally unstable and yet the people responsible did not for some reason see fit to do something concrete to prevent him from either harming himself or harming other people.

Where the gun perhaps is relevant is, that if this person had, in his despair, got in someone's car and driven it intentionally into other people in order to both kill himself and attempt the 'go out in glory' idea, he would have failed. Why? Because his death and the death of others would have been far less certain with a car (because cars were not designed to kill whether they can do so or not) and more importantly perhaps, no one would have thought it newsworthy.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I am not supposed to worry when someone who is meant to be a responsible gun owner cannot see the difference between drunk driving and willfully shooting a gun at other people?

By your logic, I don't see how you need a gun if you have a car.

Yes, we all know that drunk driving is wrong, even terribly wrong. We all know that cars in the wrong hands are dangerous and should be driven responsibly. They are not however weapons, no matter how often you spin it that way. Guns are. Guns are lethal weapons designed to kill. Their express purpose is to kill. They have no other function other than to kill. You can spin the 'oh, but guns are harmless, nothing more than a deterrent until they are pointed at a felon' argument until the cows come home but it doesn't change what guns are.

Of course, there are guns that are less harmful than others when fired by incompetent shooters. Some need a high degree of skill to kill something with, some just need the person to point and shoot and bingo, lots of people die.

In relation with this thread though. Personally, I don't think that one can totally blame the availability of guns to this kind of incident. Clearly this child was mentally unstable and yet the people responsible did not for some reason see fit to do something concrete to prevent him from either harming himself or harming other people.

Where the gun perhaps is relevant is, that if this person had, in his despair, got in someone's car and driven it intentionally into other people in order to both kill himself and attempt the 'go out in glory' idea, he would have failed. Why? Because his death and the death of others would have been far less certain with a car (because cars were not designed to kill whether they can do so or not) and more importantly perhaps, no one would have thought it newsworthy.

end result is someone's dead, eh? i really doubt the dead person could see the distinction between a drunk driver or a shooter. well, maybe the only exception is the sentence, not seen too many drunk drivers face lethal injection. maybe they should.......

while you and #6 are off and running about the differences between this and that, the fact remains that a person did the crime, not the inanimate object.

as to whether guns are less harmful than others when fired by incompetent shooters, that's debatable too. especially if you've ever been hit by the projectile fired by an incompetent shooter. i have, btw.

yes, cars can be used as you depicted, but of course that would take premeditation too....and agreed on the not newsworthy aspect of it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Who is arguing otherwise in relation to who's responsible? I don't think I have ever stated that it was the gun's fault, or the car either.

However, there is no comparison between shooting guns at people and drunk driving. Guns are weapons, cars are not, period. However stupid or irresponsible a drunk driver is, and I don't think anyone here is prepared to argue that drunk driving isn't stupid and irresponsible, it is not the same as taking out a gun and shooting it at people. I think you will find that drunk drivers can be sentenced extremely harshly, and rightly so though.

With the some guns are less harmful than other's thing, are you not giving my argument more credence than your own? I was prepared to admit that not all guns are equal, some being more lethal than others particularly when not being used by an expert but if you are telling me otherwise. I stand corrected.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think what PH is trying to say is that a gun is designed with one purpose in mind -- to harm (and possibly kill) another individual. How the firearm in question is used is irrelevant in this case. It doesn't change that fact that the gun is still used first and foremost as a weapon, since that's how it was designed.

A car (since that's the example being used) is designed primarily as a means of transportation. Just because it can be used as a weapon, doesn't automatically make it a weapon. Anything can potentially become a weapon. I could probably strangle someone to death with my mouse cord or use a screwdriver to stab someone to death. Are those weapons? In those specific scenarios, yes. But neither of those items were designed for the purpose of causing injury or death, so a mouse cord and a screwdriver are not categorized as weapons.

Edited October 12, 2007 by DeadPoolX