Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 249 posts

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#81

Post by Frozenlock »

corin_ wrote: post #38
[deleted] wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Maybe... but two big differences. First: I live in the UK. I've never wanted to kill someone. If I could legally buy a handgun and use it on a shooting range I would. Let's say someday I, for some reason, become a psycho and want to kill people. Right now I don't have anything like a gun to use, best I could come up with is a kitchen knife. Under US gun law, I'd have a glock, even though when I purchased it I had no…

Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY?

Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more).

And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have to sacrifice himself by driving into you.

It's easy to point the gun, because its sole purpose is to cause harm (be it in defence or offence), but if someone wants to kill, he can do with or without a firearm.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#82

Post by mbell »

heyitsnick wrote: post #76
objclxt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is clear at all that "Columbine-like shooting are an American phenomenon". The UK has had several massacres where in each case over a dozen were killed with no apparent motive (Dunblane in 1996, Cumbira in 2010), and there have been several smaller scale incidents along similar lines. The same is true in other countries around the world - I'm just citing those I'm most familiar with. The US certainly…

> The UK has had several massacres where in each case over a dozen were killed with no apparent motive (Dunblane in 1996, Cumbira in 2010), and there have been several smaller scale incidents along similar lines. This is disingenuous. There have not been 'several cases where over a dozen were killed, and several smaller scale incidents'. There have been exactly three in recent UK history: Dunblane (16 schoolchildren…

> Now look at the United States list as a comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United....

You realize this list contains everything from wars, to 9/11, to drug gang battles, etc, etc. It is not even remotely comparable to a list of actions with "no apparent motive".

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#83

Post by mbell »

leot wrote: post #62
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US certainly has a higher frequency of apparently motiveless mass murders, but I think it is fairly certain that this is due to easy access to weapons. Someone who is mentally unbalanced is probably going to kill fewer people with a knife before being stopped than with a gun. In Japan, one mass murderer kills 8 Japanese schoolchildren with a knife. In another incident, a mass murderer kills 3 people with a truck…

The amount of determination required to do that much killing with a knife would have had its effects amplified by the ready availability of a gun. You think some person with a handgun would stand much of a chance against someone in body armor with an assault rifle?

> You think some person with a handgun would stand much of a chance against someone in body armor with an assault rifle?

Considering he was stopped simply by 2 people tackling him I would say: quite possibly.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#84

Post by lubutu »

heyitsnick wrote: post #76
objclxt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is clear at all that "Columbine-like shooting are an American phenomenon". The UK has had several massacres where in each case over a dozen were killed with no apparent motive (Dunblane in 1996, Cumbira in 2010), and there have been several smaller scale incidents along similar lines. The same is true in other countries around the world - I'm just citing those I'm most familiar with. The US certainly…

> The UK has had several massacres where in each case over a dozen were killed with no apparent motive (Dunblane in 1996, Cumbira in 2010), and there have been several smaller scale incidents along similar lines. This is disingenuous. There have not been 'several cases where over a dozen were killed, and several smaller scale incidents'. There have been exactly three in recent UK history: Dunblane (16 schoolchildren…

Some of those American massacres go back to the 14th century. It's quite possible that more have occurred in the USA than the UK, but that's hardly a fair comparison.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#85

Post by corin_ »

Frozenlock wrote: post #81
corin_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe... but two big differences. First: I live in the UK. I've never wanted to kill someone. If I could legally buy a handgun and use it on a shooting range I would. Let's say someday I, for some reason, become a psycho and want to kill people. Right now I don't have anything like a gun to use, best I could come up with is a kitchen knife. Under US gun law, I'd have a glock, even though when I purchased it I had no…

Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY? Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more). And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have…

Give person A a gun and person B a car and I suspect I know which one would manage to kill more people.

edit: Assuming they were both trying to kill as many people as possible.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#86

Post by jackalope »

kiba wrote: post #63
_delirium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean murders in general, or only these spectacle-type spree murders? It seems like much of the discussion is trying to generalize about murder based on these very rare spree killings, but imo it'd be more productive to look at where we have a lot more data, even if it's less spectacular. It's very unusual for someone to shoot up a school or a movie theatre, but it is not, alas, particularly unusual to "[kill]…

There are 12,000 annual murder in a population of 300,000 million. The hardware bug is pretty rare in the first place.

Or that particular side effect of the bug is rare. Maybe the cook who spits in your food is suffering from the same hardware bug.

Maybe it's counterproductive to focus only on the cases involving murder. It's a horrible act, and a problem that society wants to solve, but what problem was the perpetrator attempting to solve by killing innocent strangers? I can't think of any. It makes me wonder what the rest of the people suffering from the same condition are doing, if they're not all out stockpiling ammunition for a homicidal rampage.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#87

Post by drx »

grandalf wrote: post #72

It's just a complete waste of time to think about these kinds of things. Some humans malfunction and do this kind of thing. It happens quite rarely, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. One's probability of being harmed by the occasional insane murderer (or terrorism for that matter) is microscopic compared to so many other things that we can actually do something about.

No it isn't.

If a remediable cause can be found (for example, depression and society's attitude towards it), the problem can go away.

And the problem is far from microscopic; not all murder-suicides are flashy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder%E2%80%93suicide

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#88

Post by jberryman »

grandalf wrote: post #72

It's just a complete waste of time to think about these kinds of things. Some humans malfunction and do this kind of thing. It happens quite rarely, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. One's probability of being harmed by the occasional insane murderer (or terrorism for that matter) is microscopic compared to so many other things that we can actually do something about.

I understand what you're saying, but really "there is nothi that can be done to stop it"? What about outlawing firearms for civilian use, or even just not letting the assault weapons ban lapse? And don't tell me every angry/depressed yuppie kid who was going to go on a rampage when guns were easier to get than a drivers license is going to negotiate some black market underworld he knows nothing about to get his guns.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#89

Post by joshuacc »

japhyr wrote: post #2

I cringe every time I hear perpetrators of mass shootings described as "evil". Evil implies a presence of something bad. It's an easy label that allows people to hate the perpetrator. It's much more accurate to describe the perpetrators as cold, empty, detached. That is frightening, because there is no hope of reasoning or bargaining with someone who is truly detached from emotion. There is no such thing as evil. I a…

"There is no such thing as evil."

It's worth pointing out that one of the standard definitions of evil in the Christian tradition (since at least St. Augustine) is as a sort of privation, or lack. That is, evil isn't considered to be a thing that exists, but the lack of some good which should exist . It's somewhat analogous to a hole in a shirt. The hole is the absence of something that should be there.

I find that this actually dovetails nicely with your description of the perpetrators as cold, empty and detached. (Whether this was actually the psychological state of the killers is an open question.)

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#90

Post by 54mf »

nodemaker wrote: post #43
[deleted] wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Maybe a handgun, but I find it pretty hard to imagine a PhD grad student managing to buy a semi automatic assault rifle or 100 round drum magazines off the street. It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other.

I agree with your first point. The "black market" isn't a place you just go to if you want to buy illegal shit. The fact is, if the shooter didn't have legal, easy access to an assault rifle, he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did. Period.

"It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other."

Well, yeah, it is. Assault rifles are legal in most states. What does being in Colorado have to do with anything?

Post reply on HN