Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on 4 Killed on North Illinois University Campus

1

What the fuck is happening in this world? Back in the early '60s when Charles Whitman climbed that tower at UT and started killing people, it stunned a nation. Now that shit is becoming almost commonplace.

You can't even go to class now without some small part of your brain wondering, "Will this be the day?"

Posted by Bauhaus | February 14, 2008 5:16 PM
2

There were times in class when I felt like doing that, but at least I kept to fire crackers.

Posted by not as panicked as above | February 14, 2008 5:23 PM
3

Back in the '60s, we were all way too fucked up on drugs to do shit like this. The obvious solution: more drugs in schools.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 14, 2008 5:44 PM
4

Damn those black-clothes-wearing killers! Honestly, does it fucking matter what they were wearing? Why do we always have to read what they were wearing? Lots of high-school and college kids wear black; it's a sign of their disaffectedness, or rebellion, or whatever. 99% of them, um, never open fire on their classmates.

Posted by switzerblog | February 14, 2008 5:47 PM
5

What's the percentage for people wearing Dockers and button-down shirts and ties, Switzerblog?

Posted by Fnarf | February 14, 2008 6:09 PM
6

Easy availability of guns. That's it. Until we fix that, we are gonna have shooters running amok everywhere.

Like we do now.

The gun loving crowd claims that we need all these guns to make us safer, arguing that gun carryers will pull it out and off the deranged killers.

Not so.

The gun defenders who claim aan armed citizenry will make us safer show up in the legislature and on the blogs, to argue their ill informed case ad nauseum, but when there is actually a deranged shooter in church, at a school, in a gay neighborhood, or at the grocery store these armed citizens never seem to actually pull out their wapon and get the killer.
The way they claim will happen if we have guns everywhere and readily available.

We do not that any idiot can become a massively powerful army of one, anytime, any place we go.

Posted by unPC | February 14, 2008 6:09 PM
7

Why can't those motherfuckers kill themselves first?

Posted by keshmeshi | February 14, 2008 6:12 PM
8

unPC, undoubtedly you are unaware of the fact that civilians are involved in three times as many justifiable shootings as police officers every year. I say "undoubtably" because, if you had known that, you probably wouldn't have written that last post.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 14, 2008 6:47 PM
9

5280 vs unPC: oh shit, the HRC coalition is unraveling...

Posted by Big Sven | February 14, 2008 6:59 PM
10

#8, I would argue that there is no justifiable shooting. I know you are going to reply about the gutsy hero who saves his family from the demons with his 6-shooter.
Get rid of guns, then you'll get rid of shootings. More guns, more shootings.

Posted by paul | February 14, 2008 7:10 PM
11

#10 Horseshit. The drugged addled folks who read this here blog should be the first to recognize that just because something is illegal, there will always be ways to get your hands on it.

" I would argue that there is no justifiable shooting"


Not trying to pick a fight, but that is hands down the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.

Posted by Rotten666 | February 14, 2008 7:24 PM
12

Yeah, they tried that in England. Guess what happened? The violent crime rate went up FIVE TIMES what it was when people could defend themselves. The violent crime rate in London is now THREE TIMES that of New York City. Any other bright ideas?

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 14, 2008 7:25 PM
13

And no, Sven, the coalition is not unraveling. Both Hilly and Obummer are about equally as rabidly anti-gun. If that was my only issue, I couldn't in good conscience vote for either of them. Fortunately, there's a little group out there called the NRA, which I support heavily, which has a pretty impressive track record of keeping the more radical wing-nuts in check.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 14, 2008 7:43 PM
14

" there's a little group out there called the NRA, which I support heavily, which has a pretty impressive track record of keeping the more radical wing-nuts in check."

boy, having the NRA keep us all safe from radical wing-nuts sure rings a bit like having the fox guarding the henhouse sort of thing...sheesh, just sorta kinda.

Posted by point x point synopsis | February 14, 2008 8:02 PM
15

I definitely agree with 5280.

Posted by cubra | February 14, 2008 8:42 PM
16

Curiously enough, the data I'm citing here comes from people (e.g., CDC, University of Wisconsin, Princeton) who initiated studies to prove that the gun culture was "evil." Much to their chagrin, once the numbers started coming in, their theories turned out to be pretty worthless.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 14, 2008 9:32 PM
17

2nd Amendment folks, like it or not it ain't going away.

Posted by Hernandez | February 15, 2008 8:29 AM
18

This is just sad to me. I used to teach at NIU. So Dekalb is not an abstract place to me.

The gun thing is a source of great ambivalence for me. I've never shot a gun or even held a real one. There are a lot of bad things that happen because of guns. But the idea that the police, Dubya, and his buddies are the only people in our country who can legally have guns. Well, I don't like that idea either.

People sometimes say I'm crazy and naive to think this way. What good would those civilian owned guns do against the might of the US Military if a President chose to apply it against the American people.

To that I say, just look at Iraq, Vietnam, or our own American Revolution.

A motivated civilian population with access to firearms is a very difficult thing to deal with, especially in a country as geographically dispersed as our own.

Whether guns make me safer day to day, I'm not sure. And while reasonable people can disagree about the Framers' intent with respect to the Second Amendment, I think they actually were thinking about some of the stuff I've raised above.

Posted by j-lon | February 15, 2008 9:14 AM
19

That's funny, because considering how many murders there are in US cities compared to other first world countries, I find the "we need guns" argument a little hard to believe.

For the England scenario, it should be noted that there is currently a band on ALL methods of defense, including such things as knitting needles, walking sticks, and even toy guns. Thus it cannot be proved that it is specifically the ban on GUNS that has caused the rise in crime. Perhaps it is the ban on... defending yourself at all?

I know it's hard to tear our minds away from the gangster-in-the-ally scenario, what with all the media fear-mongering. However the person you're most likely to kill with a gun is not a dangerous stranger, but a member of your own family.

Anyway, doesn't everyone have tazers by now?
Boy I feel safe!

Posted by Cinders | February 15, 2008 9:37 AM
20

*ban, not band o.O

Posted by Cinders | February 15, 2008 9:38 AM
21

why would someone do this i dont know who the hell the could do this

Posted by Casey | February 15, 2008 5:10 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).