the night before

November 3, 2005 1:04 AM

The night before. You can bet that most times when someone goes all murder-suicide, there are a few awkward conversations prior when sane people try to talk them out of doing something stupid. You know there is something wrong when the voice of reason is the something awful forums.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht (77 comments total)

rats, meant to include the sfgate link in the post body.

"My names William Freund(check that old gas thread I made I think I left my drivers license on a pic there)"
oct SA - 26th

William Freund, 19, left his home about 9 a.m. and drove less than 100 yards to a house, where he shot and killed 22-year-old Christina Smith and her 45-year-old father Vernon Smith with a shotgun
sfgat - oct 29
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 1:08 AM on November 3, 2005

SA - oct 26th* bed time!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 1:08 AM on November 3, 2005

Not exactly "the voice of reason". Some of the folks at SA gave him advice about buying buckshot, even after he had made clear that he wanted to shoot people.
posted by elgilito at 1:32 AM on November 3, 2005

Actually, his first post seemed (relatively) reasonable - he wanted buckshot for home defense, after some dudes shot up his house and his father last year at Hallowe'en. It's only later in the thread that he starts going mental about wanting to shoot up some dudes with BB guns.
posted by antifuse at 1:39 AM on November 3, 2005

Anderson, whose older brother had given Freund a ride to school, described Freund as "a real quiet guy."
...
Police tape blocked off much of the large subdivision [in the high school halls...]in the hills above Aliso Viejo, a wealthy section of south Orange County.


Concerned citizens point to these episodes as good reasons to limit gun ownership, but I don't think nerfing society is a real answer. Living in Japan in the 1990s, I thought it was cool that they had lots of toy guns but few real guns, but now I don't think we can get there from here.

Constitutionally, people have a right to become proficient in firearms, and keep serious weapons in their homes.

Extra-constitutionally (well, via the 9th Amendment), people have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their stuff. A very fundamental right.

Couple years ago some teenage punk broke into my house when I was upstairs. He ran out when he saw me, but it was quite an experience. A housemate bought a small gunsafe for one of his 9mm Berettas and took me to a range to become skillful enough to use it. It was a welcome addition.

Reading the ananand forums ... just goes to show we's all people behind our screennames...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:55 AM on November 3, 2005

There's more here:

He wrote more than two dozen online messages in October, asking for a "real life" friend and saying he was contemplating suicide. He also threatened to start "a Terror Campaign to hurt those that have hurt me." The messages paint a portrait of a troubled young man struggling with Asperger's syndrome... He revealed his anguish and frustration on a website, wrongplanet.net, used by people with Asperger's.

... He also disclosed that he had bought a 12-gauge shotgun and had gone online to buy ammunition.

Members of the online community for Asperger's tried to reassure Freund and offer suggestions, and volunteer moderators tried to find his parents.

Their efforts failed.
posted by funambulist at 1:58 AM on November 3, 2005

Lots of media coverage of this, but the press hasn't yet noticed the SA thread yet. It was on the 26th. Look out for civil suits eventually.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:00 AM on November 3, 2005

He ran out when he saw me, but it was quite an experience.

So you weren't in any way physically assaulted? Basically some punk kid was stealing from you. And for that you have the right to end his life?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:18 AM on November 3, 2005

Interesting how many people posting in that thread can't believe it. Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.

Of course, nothing like that would ever happen here. I'm sure we'd all respond much more humanely.
posted by warbaby at 2:24 AM on November 3, 2005

Lots of media coverage of this, but the press hasn't yet noticed the SA thread yet. It was on the 26th. Look out for civil suits eventually.

The poster of the 2nd to last post on the SA thread had a clue about this and some foresight and brought it to a mod's attention.

"Paging Lincoln's Wax to thread number 1704519, we have a gimmick poster out of control/possible future legal problems. You guys understand how the media would jump on this if this fuckwad is real and actually shoots some kids this halloween, right? Fuck this."

"Please, get the fuck out of TFR."
posted by Mijo Bijo at 2:27 AM on November 3, 2005

And for that you have the right to end his life?

No. A firearm, used properly, is a tool to control a situation.

Like the police, I would only use it to shoot to kill, and only when life was threatened, not just property.

Philosophically and legally, killing someone over property is a mixed bag, but I have no moral problem with plugging someone who escalates a confrontration. Someone advancing at me when I order them to stop (eg. in my house), they die; someone running away, oh well.

Relevant California Penal Code:

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
...
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony [residential burglary is a felony], or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein;
...
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:19 AM on November 3, 2005

What is TFR?
posted by Outlawyr at 3:20 AM on November 3, 2005

What is TFR?

The title of their discussion forum: "The Firing Range".
posted by Mijo Bijo at 3:24 AM on November 3, 2005

totally wrong, mijo. it means "that fucking retard," aka, the dude who did all the slaying.

btw, i love extrahomicidal tooth-gnashing. "we caused it," the TFR posters will whine. nevermind that they couldn't be less important to this story.

and quite frankly, who gives a fuck? "maladjusted teen culls self, others from herd -- story sometime near 11 pm."

doesn't anyone realize that 300 million people live in this country, and your murder is only discussed at length if you reach the appropriate income threshhold, which right now is approximately six figures? the chance of being a victim of murder is statistically less significant than one's chance of being in a car accident or having undescended testicles (M or F!).
posted by Hat Maui at 3:37 AM on November 3, 2005

No. A firearm, used properly, is a tool to control a situation.

Like the police, I would only use it to shoot to kill, and only when life was threatened, not just property.

If I was the burglar, I would feel my life was being threatened if someone pointed a gun at me. So if he's playing by your rules, you just made everything so much worse. Way to escalate.

(For what it's worth, if I was living in the US I'd probably have a firearm at home; I just think the logic in your post is broken).
posted by Leon at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2005

totally wrong, mijo. it means "that fucking retard,"

Sorry, but you're the one who's totally wrong, Hat Maui, in addition to being a bit of a prick, apparently. The SA Thread in question is indeed in the subforum called 'The Firing Range', which is devoted to firearms. It is one of many topic-oriented subforums at SA.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:47 AM on November 3, 2005

If I was the burglar, I would feel my life was being threatened if someone pointed a gun at me.

Rule #2 of firearms training is never pointing the gun at something you're not going to shoot. This applies to confrontations in the home, too. The training is to have the left arm out ready to repulse any bumrush and the firearm at one's side, ready to be aimed and fired.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:51 AM on November 3, 2005

Does it seem to anyone else who read funambulist's link that he should have been diagnosed with (and treated for) something in addition to Asperger's?
posted by blendor at 4:01 AM on November 3, 2005

Now now children.

Forums like that need mods who know better and are willing to take action. I've seen this stuff happen on IRC regularly enough to know better when someone starts going off the dep end. The only problem is that there's no registration info on IRC so it's very hard to take action.
posted by furtive at 4:24 AM on November 3, 2005

Wow, didn't something like this happen a few months ago, but it had turned out to be a hoax? From what I remember, as part of a prank, someone started a thread on some message board, got into some kind of argument in the thread, and then threatened to drive to the kids house and shoot him. They then posted a fake news article, and if I remember correctly, in the news article the kid killed 2 people in the house with a shotgun, and a 3rd, a neighbor, was saved when the gun misfired. The kid didn't kill himself in the end though, he continued to post in the thread, bragging about what he had done, until it was revealed that the whole thing was a hoax.
posted by Venadium at 4:40 AM on November 3, 2005

If I was the burglar, I would feel my life was being threatened if someone pointed a gun at me.

WTF?
You wouldn't feel threatened otherwise? Breaking into someone else' house?
You wouldn't feel threatened if you were NOT a burglar, but someone did point a gun at you?
I don't think "logic" means what you think it does.
posted by c13 at 5:00 AM on November 3, 2005

I'm not as worried about the participants' criminal liability as their civil liability. IANAL, but a lawsuit could be ruinous and I suspect the standards for proof of guilt are lower.
posted by alumshubby at 5:01 AM on November 3, 2005

A firearm, used properly, is a tool to control a situation.

Sorry about my previous assumption--from the way your first comment was worded, I thought you meant "wish I had a gun so I could kill the SOB," not "wish I had a gun to make sure I'm not harmed."

As for the escalation point mentioned later, yes, brandishing a firearm can have that effect occasionally, but this would require the perpetrator to also have a weapon, in which case... as the saying goes, "better to have a gun and not need it than need one and not have it."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:04 AM on November 3, 2005

c13 : "WTF?
"You wouldn't feel threatened otherwise? Breaking into someone else' house?
"You wouldn't feel threatened if you were NOT a burglar, but someone did point a gun at you?"

I've lost track of whether this is now the pro or anti-gun side of the discussion, but: if I were a burglar, and a random homeowner came down the stairs, I would feel threatened to some degree. If they had a gun, I'd feel a whole lot more threatened. I'm pretty sure that's what Leon's saying. And the phrase "If I were a burglar, I would feel my life was being threatened if someone pointed a gun at me" is in reference to Leon placing himself in the hypothetical situation of pointing a gun at a burglar. It is not the same as saying "If, and only if, I were a burglar, I would feel my life was being threatened if someone pointed a gun at me". If we accepted that kind of interpretation, then we'd have to parse even the plainer sentence "I would feel my life was being threatened if someone pointed a gun at me" to imply "I would not feel my life was being threatened if someone held a knife to my neck". And that's just being silly.
posted by Bugbread at 5:12 AM on November 3, 2005

So are you saying that the burglar *shouldn't* be threatened by homeowners? Its not a good thing to make him more scared? So maybe he would think twice about breaking in?
posted by c13 at 5:17 AM on November 3, 2005

what do they mean when they keep talking about a 'gassed' thread???
posted by jnthnjng at 5:21 AM on November 3, 2005

No. A firearm, used properly, is a tool to control a situation.

That makes so much sense. This must be why societies where guns are rampant have so much less crime. All that situation controlling going on! The logic of this is perfect, thanks for the explanation!
posted by Hildegarde at 5:23 AM on November 3, 2005

what do they mean when they keep talking about a 'gassed' thread???

A 'gassed thread' is a deleted thread. They go to the 'Comedy Gas Chamber' where they can be viewed as examples of what and how not to post.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 AM on November 3, 2005

...and usually earn Lowtax another $10.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:26 AM on November 3, 2005

I'm not as worried about the participants' criminal liability as their civil liability. IANAL, but a lawsuit could be ruinous and I suspect the standards for proof of guilt are lower.

IANAL either, but I can't see any of the forum participants having a liability in this in anyway. They didn't give him anymore information than he could have found on google. And the minute they realized that something wasn't right with him, they immediately stopped giving him information and tried to inform him that he was very wrong.

However, I can see a civil case being made against the parents. I find it hard to imagine that they had no clue as to what their son was capable of doing. A lot is made about his inability to make friends, but it sounds like he didn't have any friends at home either. His parents own a business and were probably too busy to pay attention to their son's needs as well. I know he was being medicated for his disorder, but I can't see how his parents would be aloof to this level of despondency.

And the litigiousness of today's society, somebody will get sued.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 5:35 AM on November 3, 2005

I will miss Something Awful.

Seriously, any lawyer worth his/her salt will go after them with ruthless agression, even if there is no there there. And even at $10/user, how much money in the bank does SA have to fight this off?
posted by andreaazure at 5:42 AM on November 3, 2005

Heywood Mogroot writes "A housemate bought a small gunsafe for one of his 9mm Berettas and took me to a range to become skillful enough to use it. It was a welcome addition. "

I certainly hope that the next time someone breaks into your house you will have the leisure of:

1. remembering where the safe is,
2. remembering the safe combination,
3. opening the safe,
4. load the pistol, and
5. confront the intruder in such a way that you do not risk being disarmed and have your weapon used against you.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just that if you do keep a weapon in a safe manner endorsed by firearms enthusiasts its potential for home defense is somewhat weakened.
posted by clevershark at 5:43 AM on November 3, 2005

c13 : "So are you saying that the burglar *shouldn't* be threatened by homeowners? Its not a good thing to make him more scared? So maybe he would think twice about breaking in?"

Dunno if that's directed at myself or Leon, because I suspect Leon's position and my own differ.
Personally, I would hope that a would-be burglar "should" (i.e. would hopefully) feel very threatened when considering breaking into my house. So threatened that he wouldn't do it, and would burgle somewhere else or decide to become a street hustler or pickpocket instead, if he had his heart set on crime. At the point where he entered the house, I would hope that he felt so threatened by me that he would want to flee, but not so threatened by me that he would decide to kill me. Since those threat levels are pretty equivalent, it comes down to whether he was armed or not. If he was armed with a ranged weapon (i.e. not a knife or brass knuckles), I would hope he'd feel really threatened, because he'd realize that flight would be a better choice than fight. If he had a ranged weapon (gun, hand grenade, death-ray), I'd hope he'd feel thoroughly and absolutely unthreatened by me, not only physically, but legally (i.e. I'd hope he thought I was blind and thereby unable to identify him, and so thoroughly luddite that I wouldn't know how to call the cops anyway), to avoid him deciding on fight instead of flight.

As far as breaking in again, I really don't know if that's common (same burglar same residence). I suspect it isn't too common. If it were common, to the extent allowed by the conditions above, I'd hope he felt threatened enough not to come again. If it weren't common, if he were unrangearmed, as above, then I'd hope he'd feel threatened enough not to burglarize anyone else's house. If he were rangearmed, I'd hope he'd feel unthreatened enough by me to leave me perfectly healthy, and then feel threatened enough on his next burglary that he'd think twice about considering his career. Unless, of course, the next burglary were that of my parent's house, or friend's house, or the like, in which case my hopes would be the same as for myself, repeated as appropriate, until he broke into a stranger's house, in which case the "feel threatened, quit burglary" bit above would apply.

Yes, that's really long and involved, but that's what I think, and there is enough range of possibility that I can't really shorten it to "Yes, they should always feel threatened" or "No, they should never feel threatened".
posted by Bugbread at 5:45 AM on November 3, 2005

So, uh, anyone know where I can get buckshot at a discount? It's for home defense, honest.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:22 AM on November 3, 2005

I certainly hope that the next time someone breaks into your house you will have the leisure of:

1. remembering where the safe is,

If there are people out there who are forgetting where they keep their large metal boxes mounted to the wall with lethal weapons stored inside, burglars aren't my top worry at the moment.

As for the lawsuit, what andreaazure said. Some of the people in that thread talking about how they should spin it are a bit devoid of the reality here. Regardless of "blame," that someone who just killed two people and himself with a firearm solicited advice about using said firearm is somewhat incontrovertible. I don't have a position either way, but in any kind of civil suit everyone gets blamed. If they sue gun manufacturers, they will sue SomethingAwful. If the owners of SA have any brains at all they're on the phone with lawyers as we speak.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:25 AM on November 3, 2005

Hat, guys, please keep the discourse at at least the 8th grade level.

Heywood, do us all a favor and get a dog.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:25 AM on November 3, 2005

[03:05:39] [ ripper ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~shoa
[03:05:42] [ ripper ] I'm fukcin
posted by jack_mo at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2005

Knew it was only a matter of time, jack_mo.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:05 AM on November 3, 2005

Thankfully he didn't read MetaFilter.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:13 AM on November 3, 2005

Seriously, any lawyer worth his/her salt will go after them with ruthless agression, even if there is no there there. And even at $10/user, how much money in the bank does SA have to fight this off?
posted by andreaazure at 5:42 AM PST on November 3

If Lowtax posted a donation thread for the SA Legal Defense Fund, he'd have about $100,000 in the bank in a matter of days, trust me.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:16 AM on November 3, 2005

Seriously, any lawyer worth his/her salt will go after them with ruthless agression, even if there is no there there.

I doubt it. The SA forum users only mentioned a few places to purchase 00 shot, and only in the first few posts. They quickly realized this guy was an idiot, and were actively trying to educate him (when they later realized he was beyond education, they resorted to ridicule and banishment).

His line of thinking was basically, "I want to entice prankster youths to try and desecrate my sacred Halloween pumpkins, then surprise them with a couple barrels full of buckshot." To which the forum posters properly advised, "that's illegal and against everything responsible gun owners stand for. Get out of here, jackass."

Second to last post in the thread:

You guys understand how the media would jump on this if this fuckwad is real and actually shoots some kids this halloween, right? Fuck this. Please, get the fuck out of TFR.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:22 AM on November 3, 2005

C_D, I agree with what you are saying, however logic and jury are seldom found in the same sentence.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:32 AM on November 3, 2005

The best prevention against burglary is not to be rich so you don't have to worry about valuable things being stolen from your house. Am I not clever!

What's burglary got to do with this story anyway? Nothing, right?
posted by funambulist at 7:37 AM on November 3, 2005

Without a shred of evidence to back this up, I suspect that poor people get more stuff stolen from them than rich people.
posted by Eamon at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2005

Eamon - that's certainly true where I live. It's more dangerous to live in a bad neighborhood than to own shiny things.
posted by selfnoise at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2005

How about you just don't buy anything that you feel is worth more than a human life? That way if someone breaks into your house and takes stuff, you don't care so much. Either that or you just get more insurance.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2005

LOL. SA banned me for making fun of their Urban Dead playa'z. (Not so much that I made fun of them, rather, that they wouldn't stop complaining about it. HA!)
posted by jmccorm at 8:50 AM on November 3, 2005

Guns and logic mix like oil and water.
posted by warbaby at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2005

LOL. SA banned me for making fun of their Urban Dead playa'z. (Not so much that I made fun of them, rather, that they wouldn't stop complaining about it. HA!)
posted by jmccorm at 8:50 AM PST on November 3

No one cares.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:05 AM on November 3, 2005

BrotherCaine what do you mean?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:11 AM on November 3, 2005

This is quite probably just a technical thing, but did anybody elso notice the posting dates on the SA thread are all over the place? Can anyone elucidate?
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2005

Herr, I think you're seeing each SA poster's registration date (located just under their username). The date and time of each post is at the very bottom left of each post, underneath the poster's avatar.
posted by Gator at 10:29 AM on November 3, 2005

remembering where the safe is,
next to my computer

remembering the safe combination,
in fact the combo was forgotten after ~6 months...

opening the safe,
it was a quick combo sequence (takes 1 second to key in, can do it in the dark), spring-loaded door

load the pistol
snap, rack, ready

confront the intruder in such a way that you do not risk being disarmed and have your weapon used against you.

well, generally, he's going to have to confront me cuz I'm going to be in my room dialling 911 waiting for the police to arrive.

I like this hypothetical situation a lot better being in my bedroom waiting for the police with a handgun than without.

Like I said, firearms are a tool. I agree they require training and I have zero problem requiring licensing on the order of getting a motorcycle endorsement.

I believe gun control is a local issue and not much of a Federal issue outside of demonstrable interstate commerce issues (go Alito! [gag]).

I resent people telling me I should get a dog. I should be free to protect myself responsibly.

Just 5 years ago I used to be a big anti-gun person. I saw how cool Japan was without guns. Ironically, they have a rich toy-gun industry which serves kids' needs to play with toy guns. Would that we could have one too, but since we have so many real guns out on the street, realistic toy guns make policework much harder.

Dean in mid-2003 opened my eyes a bit; what do I care what people in Alabama do with their guns? I extend that logic to the county level, too.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:04 AM on November 3, 2005

If Dems ever want to retake national office, it would help to let the midwest & mountain states have fun with their guns. I'm not asking this just for political convenience, but to think through why you care what people in Colorado and Montana do with their guns. Saving life is one thing, but the cost to society for irresponsible gun use is not that significant, and the flipside to the ability of the state to limit rights is the undue nature of the imposed limitation. Like I said above, protecting oneself is a fundamental, inalienable human right, and I believe gun ownership is an important component of this freedom.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:14 AM on November 3, 2005

I should be free to protect myself responsibly.

So you're getting a dog then?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2005

Look, I'm from Alabama and I own guns, many of them. I do not own any of them to protect myself (with the exception of the handgun that we use at our cabin when we go to the outhouse at night because of the coyote problem). Guns are tools, yes, but using a gun to protect your property is like using a screwdriver to drive nails. Get better locks, they are less likely to kill the neighbor kids.

People are lead to believe that a gun is the right tool for the job by some Charles Bronson/Roy Rogers fantasy that somehow the intruders are all out to rape your family and that they are also really slow moving and bad shots. It is this fantasy that leads autistic kids to brandish a shotgun against bb-gun wielding neighborhood bullies.

Only 10 percent of all robberies take place in the home. Most home invasions take place in homes occupied by drug dealers. The NYPD, FBI, DEA and FOP listed the number one deterrent of home invasion robberies, peepholes. In NY in 2003, the NYPD began a program of installing peepholes in residences as part of Operation Impact and reduced home invasions by 26%.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2005

Pollomacho : "The NYPD, FBI, DEA and FOP listed the number one deterrent of home invasion robberies, peepholes. In NY in 2003, the NYPD began a program of installing peepholes in residences as part of Operation Impact and reduced home invasions by 26%."

I'm very surprised that there are areas where there are doors without peepholes. I've never seen a front door without one. Is this a regional thing?
posted by Bugbread at 11:52 AM on November 3, 2005

So you're getting a dog then?

No. Another Beretta/gunsafe combo. I'm pretty confident that gun control is a dead letter in the US now, and I don't understand peoples' problems with responsible gun ownership.

I do understand that guns are a different class of weapon than knives or blunt instruments, in that they facilitate criminal violence, death-by-misadventure, and the injury of third parties once the bullet(s) leave the immediate scene of action.

While it is arguable that with a handgun in the house it is more likely the gun will cause more damage to somebody in the household than an intruder, I believe with a stricter licensing regime these numbers would go way down.

I would like to see less handguns on the streets, and I recognize the only way to accomplish this is to limit handgun sales (period). But wrt being armed to protect myself, I'd take a 9mm over a baseball bat or barking dog any day.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:04 PM on November 3, 2005

We don't have guns to defend our lives or property, we have guns to defend our Liberyty.
posted by Megafly at 12:35 PM on November 3, 2005

uh, Liberty
posted by Megafly at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2005

Ohhhhh... so Freund was protecting his Liberty. Got it.
posted by papercake at 12:39 PM on November 3, 2005

I won't say that SA is in any way guilty of any crimes, but I would feel pretty weird for a long time if I was one of the people who talked to this kid about using buckshot over birdshot.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 12:58 PM on November 3, 2005

I'd like to thank the poster for the excellent article on the role of firearms in home safety. It has spawned very relevant and important discussion on the appropriate methods of keeping yourself and/or your family members safe in case you are confronted with a burglar.

I'm a member at wrongplanet.net so this is especially weird for me. I wish they hadn't removed the posts - the name sounds familiar and I wonder if I spoke with him at all. Something I haven't yet seen mentioned here is that he was apparently on Geodon (which would imply that he had problems beyond AS), which is an anti-psychotic that according to somemay cause a propensity toward violence. I have been taking Geodon for the last month and just stopped. This last month I have experienced three Rage Episodes. During the episodes I wanted to kill or maim loved ones and family members. I could actually visualize the distruction. I was extreemely frightened. Turning the Rage outward put my family in jeopardy and turning the Rage inward put my life at risk. It took all my self-control to prevent the violence. I was unaware that I was capable of experiencing such intense violent emotions.

Also, there's a long thread on wrongplanet about this. William lived in my neighborhood and he seemed like a nice kid, he used to babysit my mom's friend's dog whenever she went on vacation. My friend sara was in his p.e. class and she said that he was always really nice to her but that the other kids picked on him. I moved to Berkeley, CA 3 months ago to go to college, and this past halloween weekend I came home to visit my parents, I woke up on saturday morning to sirens....later that day i found out what happened and I was completely shocked....Christina smith was a nice girl and i don't believe that she ever picked on william because she herself had difficulties dealing with people. Aliso Viejo, although looks like the perfect community, it's not there's lots of mean kids that went to our high school...I used to get picked on by all the "cool" kids but luckily i had a close group of friends that consisted of 4 girls. My brother who is attending the middle school down the street, also gets picked on by the other kids and i try to help him. I really wish i had known william, i really wish i had done something... oh yeah the media is really butchering him, portraying him as an insane man.
posted by nTeleKy at 1:15 PM on November 3, 2005

Constitutionally, people have a right to become proficient in firearms, and keep serious weapons in their homes.

Where the fuck does the Constitution say that??
posted by sic at 2:10 PM on November 3, 2005

Where the fuck does the Constitution say that??

United States v. Miller:

The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of 'civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that 'comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,' who, 'when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'6 Therefore, '[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.'

Mapping that into an equivalent proposition:

"we can [possibly] say the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear a weapon that has a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia [depending on other tests]".

Now, I think the 2nd Amendment is horribly dated and is a crumbling foundation for liberty, and the Miller judgement is ad-hoc reasoning designed to nail a criminal carrying a sawed-off shotgun. But a Constitution and its associated jurisprudence is pretty bedrock law that we should fix, when broken/outdated, and not breach.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:46 PM on November 3, 2005

US vs. Miller, does not support your idea that "people have a right to become proficient in firearms, and keep serious weapons in their homes", in fact it seems to contradict it. Although the specious argument can be made that some weapons may be allowed IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A WELL ORDERED MILITIA, there is nothing there that tells me that the Constitution defends your right to have "serious weapons" for home protection. Nothing.
posted by sic at 3:00 PM on November 3, 2005

Yeah. The government should totally have the monopoly on violence. This way no one will ever be hurt.

Also we should cover all corners with foam and blunt our teeth and outlaw all martial arts. Then people will play nice forever.


I'm all for banning firearms...as soon as they stop making them.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:09 PM on November 3, 2005

there is nothing there that tells me that the Constitution defends your right to have "serious weapons" for home protection

I had a two-pronged argument. The first prong was the 2nd-amendment well-regulated civil militia axis. This indicates, and the SCOTUS has supported over the past 60-odd years, the idea that possessing and using military-esque firearms is a protected right under the constitution. Our founding fathers wanted a counterbalance to state power and wrote it into the constitution.

I personally think this is an insane idea (civil war) but we should amend the constitution, not just ignore any silly parts.

wrt home defense, my argument was that this is a fundamental, common-law liberty. A properly licensed, registered, secured, maintained, etc. handgun falls into this category IMV.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2005

Smedleyman : "Yeah. The government should totally have the monopoly on violence. This way no one will ever be hurt. "

If you think that your ownership of a handgun is any protection from the government, you're fooling yourself.

Smedleyman : "I'm all for banning firearms...as soon as they stop making them."

This type of slogan, while plenty pithy, just seems more clever than useful or accurate. Much like "If handguns are outlawed, only criminals will have handguns". Well, sure. If they're legal, then you have 100 armed civilians, 100 armed outlaws, and at the end of the day, 10 dead outlaws and 10 dead civilians. If they're illegal, you have 0 armed civilians, 10 armed outlaws, and at the end of the day, 1 dead civilian. I'm personally more concerned with how many civilians stay alive than how many outlaws get killed.

That said, I agree that, in the particular, outlawing handguns might not prove amazingly beneficial in places like the US, where guns are already way overplentiful. Kinda like Heywood was saying, banning handguns is an incredibly fucking good idea when you're dealing with a country/society that doesn't have a lot of guns floating around already, like Japan.
posted by Bugbread at 4:08 PM on November 3, 2005

How about you just don't buy anything that you feel is worth more than a human life? That way if someone breaks into your house and takes stuff, you don't care so much. Either that or you just get more insurance.

Because the insurance industry is evil. Better not to own much of anything than to pay tribute to those bastards.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:13 PM on November 3, 2005

I'd also like BrotherCaine to further explain.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:15 PM on November 3, 2005

If you think that your ownership of a handgun is any protection from the government, you're fooling yourself.
posted by bugbread at 4:08 PM PST on November 3 [!]

1. Depends on what you mean when you say "the government." If you mean the military - well, sorta. I'm well trained. With a rifle in my hands I can give some serious, serious problems to a good number of troops for a long time. That is predicated on support from the community of course. Which we would need anyway. Without that, there's no rebellion. But having a gun in that situation is better than...well, not.

I'm thinking "the government" in terms of localized corruption. A gun would even up the odds against a crooked cop, something along those lines.

2. It's not for protection. It's for the black mariah. If you don't understand that you have no sense of history.



Smedleyman : "I'm all for banning firearms...as soon as they stop making them."
This type of slogan, while plenty pithy, just seems more clever than useful or accurate. Much like "If handguns are outlawed, only criminals will have handguns".
posted by bugbread at 4:08 PM PST on November 3


No, I'm in earnest. It would be perfectly useful to stop making them entirely. I do not agree though that the government should have the monopoly on force.
In the U.S. the police are NOT obligated to help you. This doesn't mean they aren't very very likely to help, but the recognition of this fact by the government is the flip side of that coin. I then must be empowered to protect myself.

But I kill better with a knife or my hands anyway. So, sure, stop making guns. That would thoroughly give me an edge.

We're likely at loggerheads on this issue anyway. It doesn't concern me how many civilians stay alive or how many outlaws are killed. I'm more concerned with liberty than I am with safety.

The gun for me is more a symbol (until I get old) than necessary protection.

I'll give you a more practical application than your outlaw/civilian scenario.
If the feds do decide to outlaw all firearms I will engage in armed insurrection against my government.
Which is the warning in that "only outlaws will have guns" nugget.
I'm only an outlaw if you make me an outlaw.


But I'm weird like that. I don't like the government telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies, I don't like them executing people or telling other people they have to live or putting them in secret prisons. Stuff like that.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:42 PM on November 3, 2005

.
posted by keswick at 4:59 PM on November 3, 2005

This is an interesting thread, if you ignore all the gun debate.
posted by smackfu at 10:49 PM on November 3, 2005

Jesus. If someone is breaking into my damn apartment, I'm not going to confront the bastards- these are people who are either proficient at robbery, or desperate enough to try it. In either case, I'm not sure that you'll be helping the situation at all by having a gun- if the burglar is a pro, he's going to know how to deal with it, and if he's not, he's probably going to freak out, and god knows what happens then.
Nothing that someone would steal from my apartment is worth trying to stop them. Nothing. Because, shit, I've got insurance, man. If there is a burglar in your house, I suggest you not confront them and show them that you have a gun. I would suggest that you ask them if you and your loved ones can leave, so that no-one will be harmed during the whole ordeal. The second someone comes into your residence uninvited, your only goal is to get them or yourself out of there as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
You know what you gotta do? You gotta be like Fonzie? And what's Fonzie?
He's...he's cool.
That's right, Yolanda. We all gonna be cool like Fonzie.
posted by 235w103 at 1:29 AM on November 4, 2005

Smedleyman : "I don't like the government telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies, I don't like them executing people or telling other people they have to live or putting them in secret prisons. Stuff like that."

Well, then, it looks like we agree on a lot, but just disagree about guns.
posted by Bugbread at 5:09 AM on November 4, 2005

Fair enough, bugbread.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:21 PM on November 4, 2005