8 shot to death in Ohio, including child

There are many people with obious disorder and perhaps with the diagnosis, they should never be stable enough to own a gun. Then there are people that has disorder, but so well-managed that if you didn't know - you wouldn't know. They work at a demanding job and take care of my home and lead a normal life. These people never been arrested or committed a crime, or had anything close to psychotic mania, nor have I threatened or attempted suicide. So are they still 'mentally defective' because I they have mental illness?

The issue of stigma is very real, especially for anyone who works, needs housing, or wishes to feel more safe and secure by having a gun at home. I am troubled when some people that lumps together any and all persons with a diagnosis and then rabidly promotes that kind of all-encompassing prejudice. They are being told that they are excluded from a constitutional right based on having an illness that does not impair their judgment in a way that would ever put anyone in harm's way. Does having mental in any form or degree really mean I cannot be trusted with a gun?"

No amount of paperwork can help one divine the future mental state of a person...

It's not "paperwork" that helps divine the future mental state of a person. It's people around them, that they come into contact with every day, who are most aware that people like Hance are morally or mentally unfit to take on the responsibility of carrying lethal firepower.

I guess my question in response to the above is this: Does the price -- routine mass murders -- have to be this high?

Do the Loughners and Hances within society have to have access to lethal firepower with no say from the ordinary citizens who observe them on a daily basis and see that they're either crazy or prone to violence?

The Akron Beacon Journal reported that Copley School Superintendent Brian Poe said a township trustee told him two Copley High School students were killed during the shootings and a third youth, an 11-year-old, was also killed. Poe said the trustee told him the 11-year-old was not a Copley student.

Now that more details are coming out, the shooter cornered the 11-year old -- who was the nephew of his girlfriend -- in the basement of a house where the boy had run to hide. The shooter, Michael Hance, ordered the family who was sheltering him out of the house and then cold-bloodedly shot the boy dead. The event appeared to be triggered by a property dispute.

Hence had no prior criminal record. However, comments from neighbors are helping stitch together a picture of a man very prone to conflict. As one neighbor put it, "Mike was strange, but wouldn't think he'd go to this extreme."

smithinjapan:

Outdated ' in comparison to what country" In contrast to every other nation on the planet, more or less.

It's so boring schooling people like you sometimes - - many nations cannot even manufacture guns.

You do realize this, no?

Gun control only works in countries where people actually have a certain amount of decency, respect, and common sense.

A little rude don't you think? I do a lot of work over here but I've been a gun owner in the U.S for over 20 years, I have never raised a gun in anger.

Additionally theres no evidence to indicate that gun control works in other countries either. From the U.K to Austrailia gun bans and lenghty registration programs have had no effect on gun crime. The U.S has had a declining rate of violent crime for over a decade and gun control has been it's most lax and gun ownership at its highest, I don't credit loose gun control with the declining crime rate but it rather it demonstrates that guns are merely a tool to be used by the people. How the people use that tool depends on the culture in which they use it.

Actually I don't. City wide bans have proven to do little. Gun registrations have likewise done little tor reduce crime and I doubt either of these measures would have prevented this man from killing these people.

I have to agree with you there. Gun control only works in countries where people actually have a certain amount of decency, respect, and common sense. It's not the guns killing people in America, but the fact that those with it, don't have a good head on their shoulders and lack the necessary empathy towards others.

The story is about a suburban man that went nuts and whacked a bunch of people. This type of killing spree, whether spur of the moment or premeditated, is overwhelmingly carried out by gun-owning white people, often with no prior criminal record, and is far more likely to (obviously) involve innocent people as victims.

That argument indicates pretty much sums up why gun control doesn't have a measurable impact on gun related crime. Those who follow the rules and go nuts are often impossible to detect and those who use a gun to commit crimes don't follow gun control laws.

Also, even if we look beyond the fact that many gun control laws toe the line on unconstitutional the enforcement of existing laws has always been the problem, not the laws themselves. Plus the logistics involved in enforcing are often far more taxing than the theoretical results. In DC for example, when the instituted the handgun ban there was not only no measurable reduction in crime but there was also no measurable drop in the number of handguns in the city. Neither did the nation wide assault weapons ban.

Surely you believe stricter gun control would cut down on these types of crimes

Actually I don't. City wide bans have proven to do little. Gun registrations have likewise done little tor reduce crime and I doubt either of these measures would have prevented this man from killing these people. No amount of paperwork can help one divine the future mental state of a person and frankly there aren't enough police, money, or will power to enforce any major gun control legislation especially considering such measures do little to protect the public while placing an undue burden on law abiding gun owners.

Please don't put words in my mouth, it's rude. My post indicated that gun control has had a little or no effect on gun crime and actually you made my point for me. In the 90's gun control did very little nor did tighter gun restrictions, rather it was enforcement of existing laws and the targeted police pressure on criminals and changes in cultural trends.<

Sorry, "you're suggesting" was a little too direct. Maybe "the way you say it implies..." would have been better. Anyhow, the type of gun crime you're referring to is frankly a different topic. You're talking about crime perpetrated by career/routine criminals, gangs, drug users, etc.

The story is about a suburban man that went nuts and whacked a bunch of people. This type of killing spree, whether spur of the moment or premeditated, is overwhelmingly carried out by gun-owning white people, often with no prior criminal record, and is far more likely to (obviously) involve innocent people as victims.

When you look at these types of occurrences, you often hear that the person who perpetrated the crime was able to obtain guns easily and with a minimum of paperwork, very little wait, a cursory or no background check, etc.

Surely you believe stricter gun control would cut down on these types of crimes

Breitbart: "Beyond belief !!! 'Outdated ' in comparison to what country"

In contrast to every other nation on the planet, more or less.

steve@CPFC: Maybe so, maybe not. You are guessing based on a presupposition to support your views, a common tactic in many types of discussions. Plus, you didn't address the main point of my comment: "The deadly or wrongful use of anything as a weapon is a willful matter of the heart." Since we're now guessing, here's mine: The folks in Tottenham have hearts good enough to not kill, even in their anger.

I Think all gun purchasers should have a psyche evaluation first and every 2 years there after. Maybe this type of thing can be prevented. But if a person gets a gun illegally, what can you do.

yabits

I have a relatively simple proposal for a gun law, and one that doesn't run afoul of the second amendment in practice. (If, that is, one agrees that criminals and the mentally insane don't have second amendment rights.) The proposal is this: Before a person can purchase their first firearm, they must provide notarized statements of three US citizens who will vouch for their character. Those three will assume some responsibility for any subsequent damages caused by the person they are vouching for.

I am in the States for two months a year on average these last 15 but I am not a gun owner,never have been. I recognize though that things have changed. Some of the constraints that you propose are interesting, and worth consideration; they appear to me at first glance as 'communitarian' (first), and almost 'libertarian' (second), but on this issue I don't necessarily have problems with the order you seem to be outlining. Trouble is - for you, not me - I can't see your party (Dems) going along with such a proposal because as with voter ID any request for proof of citizenship from those who would vouch for the gun owner will be denounced as 'racist' or an unfair 'burden' placed upon 'the poor.' Also - - at the very least, you want the individual states to decide on the matter???

smithinjapan

The US gun laws are outdated beyond belief, and the result is pretty clear, as we see again, and again, and again, and again... and I'm quite sure we'll see again before August is over.

Beyond belief !!! 'Outdated ' in comparison to what country? Results? What results? Your selective, JapanToday grasp of guns in America is amusing to those of us who are American. Do you have anything other than your formulaic, PC, Canadian protests?????

villagehiker; If in Tottenham the avaialble weapons had been guns you would have seen a lot of deaths by now.

The deadly or wrongful use of anything as a weapon is a willful matter of the heart. Outlawing guns doesn't address the heart. The riots in Tottenham outside London saw the use of gasoline, bottles and baseball bats. Should these be outlawed?

Helpless and devastating. I can imagine that the NRA and pro-gun advocates always make a lame argument to defend their position by downplaying the consequence of shooting as gun owner's fault. Too bad they just don't care who owns the guns and how the guns are taken and used by wrong hands.

You're suggesting there's a correlation between the loosening of gun control laws since the 90s and the decline in crime, which is misleading. Most would argue police crackdowns on gang violence and the sputtering out of the crack epidemic had more to do with that.

Please don't put words in my mouth, it's rude. My post indicated that gun control has had a little or no effect on gun crime and actually you made my point for me. In the 90's gun control did very little nor did tighter gun restrictions, rather it was enforcement of existing laws and the targeted police pressure on criminals and changes in cultural trends.

As for some of the above proposals...have fun with that. Gun bans have already been struck down as unconstitutional as have regulations that put undue burden on citizen gun owners.

Look, you would not advocate letting people own fully functional and armed tanks, attack helicopters and stealth bombers would you?

With the right permits you'd be surprised.

What gun control laws would you like see and how would they actually stop gun violence?

That did not register with me earlier, so, noliving, please accept my apology for suggesting you thought we wanted a total gun ban and suggesting you were not being constructive. Obviously you are being constructive and I salute you for that. Its not common enough on your sideof the debate and it is as welcome to me as it is difficult for me to forgive myself for not seeing it. It was me not being constructive that time and I am sorry, so please disregard that part of my post.

Yabits: Do you realize you're actually asking Americans to think before shooting?

What gun control laws would you like see and how would they actually stop gun violence?

I have a relatively simple proposal for a gun law, and one that doesn't run afoul of the second amendment in practice. (If, that is, one agrees that criminals and the mentally insane don't have second amendment rights.)

The proposal is this: Before a person can purchase their first firearm, they must provide notarized statements of three US citizens who will vouch for their character. Those three will assume some responsibility for any subsequent damages caused by the person they are vouching for.

The law would be applied after a certain date and would only apply to first-time gun purchasers. Anyone currently owning a firearm would be grandfathered in with one exception (below). America would have to tolerate this kind of horrific gun violence for a few more generations.

The exception would be a process that allows any citizen who witnesses mentally bizarre, or violent, or criminal behavior on the part of another to appeal to local authorities to remove the right to possess firearms -- after a hearing.

Noliving: "What gun control laws would you like see and how would they actually stop gun violence?"

I would like to see a nation-wide law for starters, not a state-by-state independent agreement on things. Second, I would like registration to be mandatory. Third: there is no reason why gun-shows should exist, and if they were to continue, people should not be allowed to purchase weapons (or apply to do so) at said shows. Fourth: Nothing beyond a hunting rifle should be allowed to be possessed by anyone outside law-enforcement, and even then they must be securely locked up at home and never used outside hunting season. I can give you a few more rational, everyday common-sense thoughts if you like. Just don't shoot the messenger! :)

The US gun laws are outdated beyond belief, and the result is pretty clear, as we see again, and again, and again, and again... and I'm quite sure we'll see again before August is over. And these are only the stories making news -- your average gun murder won't make it on here.

BreitbarVictorious: "Not the question,smith."

Agreed, you were deflecting. You brought in a completely unrelated argument and when called on it you cannot answer.

"The question was if Australia is free of violent gun crime."

No nation is free of violent crime via guns, but the fact remains that it is a daily happening in the US as opposed to something so rare it makes the news in other nations. You seemed to have missed that point. But hey, since you brought it up, what's the number of gun related deaths in Australia compared to that of the US? I bet in one month the US tops Australia, and in a year they beat Australia at least 10 fold.

"Australia does not have the gang problem we do."

Was this guy in a gang? Was the dude at the BBQ last week who killed his family in a gang? What's your point?

"Australia does not have a narco-empire to its south, nor a marijuana-exporting one to the immediate north."

Please don't make me laugh while I'm drinking coffee! It's not the fault of American gun-laws, eh? it's the Mexicans, and those dangerous pot-loving Canadians that made this guy do what he did! hahaha. Have you ever heard of external and internal locus of control? You are blaming everyone else for your own problems -- you therefore think you have no control over your own actions, and so need a gun. How sad is that?

That gun laws that restrict guns would have a negligible effect and that it is really drugs and gang violence that is really behind the crime in the US not guns?

You changed the subject. He was talking about gun crime. And his point was death, not snorting cocaine.

My point is that the main driver behind such crimes is drugs and gangs.

And guns are the great enabler of mass slaughter whether is mostly drugs and gangs behind the death toll or a domestic dispute.

Look, you would not advocate letting people own fully functional and armed tanks, attack helicopters and stealth bombers would you? Why? Because too few people are responsible enough with them, that is why. Its the same with guns. Not only are too few not responsible enough, but the laws and system do not do near enough to ensure responsibility.

As with your changing the subject from gun crime to just crime, I think that you think all of us are advocating a total gun ban. Did you ever stop to think maybe what is being advocated is better gun laws?

As I said before, some people just fight tooth and nail and will not be helpful or constructive.

Gosh, Breitbart, you are an amazingly intelligent & well-versed man. No one can get you on anything! You know everything! Sigh......envy. Thanks for all of the amazingly enlightening posts!

Yeah, that's all drugs and gangs and stuff.

Did I ever say it was all drugs and gangs? My point is that the main driver behind such crimes is drugs and gangs.

Better gun control laws would keep nuts like them and like this guy from being able to slaughter people so easily.

What gun control laws would you like see and how would they actually stop gun violence?

Keep this in mind, in Germany there are about 1 to 1.5 million legally owned firearms, there is an estimated 6-8.5 million illegal owned firearms in Germany.

Does it happen every day in Australia?

Not the question,smith. The question was if Australia is free of violent gun crime. It isn't. In the end we Americans don't care. Australia does not have the gang problem we do. Australia does not have illegal aliens crossing her borders armed. Australia does not have a narco-empire to its south, nor a marijuana-exporting one to the immediate north.

Noliving: "That gun laws that restrict guns would have a negligible effect and that it is really drugs and gang violence that is really behind the crime in the US not guns?"

Like the guy at the BBQ last week that got mad at his wife and so gunned down half his relatives? Yeah, that's all drugs and gangs and stuff. Same as the dudes who shot each other at Walmart over a toy a couple of Christmases back. Better gun control laws would keep nuts like them and like this guy from being able to slaughter people so easily. And no, they could not do the same with a knife, a melon-baller, or half-eaten lobster claws -- guns allow men and women like this person to inflict as many casualties as possible from a distance, and with little or no effort, not to mention on a whim.

BreibartVictorious: "So sushisake_3 are you going to tell us Australia has no crimes like this? I seem to recall some freakjob from Tasmania mowing down people in a similar crime ."

Does it happen every day in Australia?

You're suggesting there's a correlation between the loosening of gun control laws since the 90s and the decline in crime, which is misleading. Most would argue police crackdowns on gang violence and the sputtering out of the crack epidemic had more to do with that.

Doesn't that prove his point? That gun laws that restrict guns would have a negligible effect and that it is really drugs and gang violence that is really behind the crime in the US not guns?

Does Ohio have a law allowing kidergarten kids to pack heavy machine guns to defend their freedoms? Clearly, it should.

Feel the love the 'humanitarian' left has for people they will never meet and despise anyways ("No wonder America is going down the plughole.") . "Plughole"? So sushisake_3 are you going to tell us Australia has no crimes like this? I seem to recall some freakjob from Tasmania mowing down people in a similar crime .

.I'd rather be gunned down living in the good old USA than stabbed in downtown Tokyo

That's a rather bizarre statement.

Is it because you'd have a better chance surviving a stab wound than gunshots? I wonder how much that kind of death-wish statement coincides with other conservative viewpoints. (Like "rather destroy the planet than ruin the economy.")

Ah, conservatives: your actions create the America that you deserve. Too bad sane people are forced to live in the same filth.

This is wrong and I am proof. I was not forced to live there. I was allowed to leave, and this is one of the reasons I did. I have been robbed at gunpoint and shot at in a separate incident. Both in America.

the NRA-inspired Right STILL think that 'guns kill people.'

This is also wrong. They think that people kill people, not guns. And they are correct while also being extremely misleading. People do kill people. And theycan do it far, far too easily with guns, and so they do much more often since the guns are so easily available. That last bit is the truth they try to avoid.

Also, you don't have to be on the right to have your head full of NRA garbage.

Ah, conservatives: your actions create the America that you deserve. Too bad sane people are forced to live in the same filth.

People are not forced to live there...they can leave any time they want to...I'd rather be gunned down living in the good old USA than stabbed in downtown Tokyo with 10,000 people looking at me wondering what to do...

Does Ohio have a law allowing kidergarten kids to pack heavy machine guns to defend their freedoms?

Clearly, it should.

It's funny how those who are enslaved by the rhetoric coming from the NRA-inspired Right STILL think that 'guns kill people.'

Only when this ludicrous fallacy is broken might Americans see that their freedom to shoot and be shot is an idiot idea that is not at all worth defending.

On any given day, living in America is more dangerous than being a soldier in Afghanistan.

No wonder America is going down the plughole.

How many does that make this month so far, by the way? Probably more than most nations see in a year in terms of gun-related deaths.

Totally true. And let's not forget that the number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. each month will rise when you factor in the many individual homicides. After all, international sites only report sensational shootings involving many people (e.g. 7 victims in this case; 8 if you include the shooter himself). You'll only find the "minor" shooting deaths in local U.S. newspapers and news. For example, the LA Daily News reported a car-to-car shooting death in Panorama City, and a murder-suicide shooting of an elderly couple in Valencia, just on weekend alone, and just in Los Angeles.

http://www.dailynews.com/crime/ci_18630372 http://www.dailynews.com/crime/ci_18630360

Not to worry... there will be the apologists who come on here and claim that had the man been 'armed' with cardboard boxes he could have done the same thing.

No. There won't. That is the little straw man you like to dress up and cling to cuz it buys you some cheap moral rectitude with which to impress others.

Not to worry... there will be the apologists who come on here and claim that had the man been 'armed' with cardboard boxes he could have done the same thing. It's never the gun-laws... never. How many does that make this month so far, by the way? Probably more than most nations see in a year in terms of gun-related deaths.

Ah, conservatives: your actions create the America that you deserve.

Insane gun policy like "Gunwalker" or "Operation Fast and Furious" you mean???

moonbeams2

Your post suggests the perfect solution!

Eliminate all the men in the world!

Except me, of course!

Although I am in the anti-gun camp, I don't think guns are the main problem here.

The pattern I notice about killing entire families, is men. Why are men so unstable? Why are men so selfish?

Gun control in America is where academia and blood mix. We can all type til our fingers are bloody stumps, but nothing in America will change. Only seven were killed this time (not including the perpetrator), so this will disappear like a pebble in the sea; thirty will be killed at some date in the future on a college campus or at a shopping mall - that number will cause some soul searching, but in the end, nothing will be done.

Ah, conservatives: your actions create the America that you deserve. Too bad sane people are forced to live in the same filth.

Until America starts acting more like the Swiss

I should have said, until America starts acting like the Swiss, America will continue to look like Swiss cheese!

You're suggesting there's a correlation between the loosening of gun control laws since the 90s and the decline in crime, which is misleading.

We can expect more facetious arguments like that to come, and only because some people love they guns or they love the blood.

But when someone then chimes in to point out that the death penalty is an option, I tend to suspect its more the love of blood.

As far as gun control in America, I am not sure how one would measure the point that it was highest. What is the yardstick? All we can really say for sure about gun control in America is that its always been watered down at best, and jam packed with half-measures thanks the NRA who just fight anything tooth and nail. Half-measures are rarely anywhere near half good. Until America starts acting more like the Swiss, America will remain the murder spree capital of the first world.

First thing is to learn to spot the people who just love guns and blood and ignore them. The good of the country is the last thing on their minds and they will only fight us and never even try to work with us or put forth anything productive or constructive.

If only the kid had had a gun, could have been avoided

50% decline. sorry.

You're suggesting there's a correlation between the loosening of gun control laws since the 90s and the decline in crime, which is misleading. Most would argue police crackdowns on gang violence and the sputtering out of the crack epidemic had more to do with that.

Also, it appears the effect of tightening gun restriction in Australia anyway is still a contentious topic, but the numbers show a near 50% over the ten year period between 91 and 2001

It's also strange that gun control opponents seem to ignore the fact that in every country that has introduced gun control in recent history (New Zealand, Australia, the UK), gun crime practically disappeared overnight.

That’s actually patently false. Crime in nations with gun bans was low before the bans were enacted and gun crime rates weren't dramatically effected.

Another point of fact. Murder and gun crime rates in the U.S have been going down steadily since the last spike when gun control was at its highest in the early 90 . A gun ownership is neither good nor bad, it is a right though.

Abusers of that right should face the strictest penalties available, especially when children are involved. Thankfully the death penalty is a viable option in the state of Ohio for when the perpetrator is tried and convicted.

There is a reason why pro-weapon Americans always think the right to bear arms is about guns and not about butterfly knives, nunchaku, or crossbows, things that are banned in many places in America. Its because guns are by far the superior weapon of all hand held weapons.

One thing is very sure that they were killed by gun. It seems America never gives up guns, so this kinda incident happens again and again forever. That is for sure.

uh oh, here comes another insane diatribe about the far-reaching left-wing media conspiracy....

If he could not have gotten a gun, of course he would have done the same with a knife. Well, maybe he would have also needed a little crack cocaine to be able to chase down 11 people and stab them all fatally before they got away, but we all know a knife is every bit as good as a gun, which explains why most wars are fought with them.

Thats a lot of work.

If only he had convinced authorities he was in the country illegally, then the media would have ignored the whole tragedy.

Personally, I think the people who commit crimes like this should be made an example of.

If they want to outdo each other, then the punishments should be just as inventive.

The recent attrocity in relation to gun ownership in the US killed 8, What are the staistics relating to accidental fatalities due to the easy availability of weapon ownership of anything from a handbag size revolver to a high velocity rapid firing rifles . How many of these would be children?

I find myself justifying my country's loose gun control by talking about knife crime and how it can be just as dangerous, but personally I don't believe it. Knife crime goes up when you restrict guns - I don't have any numbers but I would accept that as fact. But psychology speaking, it takes a much greater will to do malicious harm before someone actually produces the nerve to get right up close with someone and stab them.

A gun, however, gives people a feeling of invincibility and lowers the threshold for resorting to violence. You don't have to be near your victims and the gun gives you an immense feeling of power. And, as others have pointed out, it not only makes it psychology easier to commit violence, but phsyically easier as well. It would have been extraordinarily difficult to physically run around stabbing 11 people.

I justify the US's loose gun control laws to others because I don't want them to get the impression that the US is a dangerous place. But, things like this happen with such alarming frequency that when I go back to visit I do sometimes get the feeling that I might one day get caught up in a shootout. Yes, gun control or no, there will always be a criminal element determined to obtain and possibly even use them, but I really believe that the average citizen is far less likely to be put in harm's way if you have strict regulation governing firearm possession.

Actually HumanTarget, shootings in Australia are just as bad as ever, if not worse.

Unfortunately the laws to reduce shootings have only been partially effective and people determinded to gain ownership do so.

I understand that firearms often serve a useful purpose but they are also a weapon that appeal to cowards, for all the wrong reasons.

It's also strange that gun control opponents seem to ignore the fact that in every country that has introduced gun control

They don't ignore that at all. They focus on the downside. They claim that burglaries and muggings go up when gun control is introduced. And they may be right.

But the thing is, this is like compaining that while air bags save lives, they also increase the price of cars. You got have your priorities mixed up or think people are too stupid to see the priority problem to make the argument.

As for gun crime practically disappearing, maybe. But knife crime surely went up. But if deaths are down, is that not the point? How can one compare loss of property to that? How can one complain that knife murders went up ten percent while overall murders are down 20 percent? Some people just love their guns and some people just love the bloodshed, that's how.

If he could not have gotten a gun or a knife, he would have killed them with pots and pans.

Less gun control = safe society is an NRA propogated myth. If you read any book about war, one of the things that stands out is the troops are shocked that when you shoot someone, they don't go down like in the movies. They keep coming at you and shooting until they bleed out or you hit them in the head.

The only thing that would result from more guns is longer exchanges of gunfire and more casualties.

It's also strange that gun control opponents seem to ignore the fact that in every country that has introduced gun control in recent history (New Zealand, Australia, the UK), gun crime practically disappeared overnight.

If he could not have gotten a gun, of course he would have done the same with a knife. Well, maybe he would have also needed a little crack cocaine to be able to chase down 11 people and stab them all fatally before they got away, but we all know a knife is every bit as good as a gun, which explains why most wars are fought with them.

Plasticmonkey - totally agree.

More guns, not less will solve this problem.

America is a free country. So why is there an age restriction on gun ownership?

Toddler size guns should be produced so that the kids can protect themselves from the terrorists in kindergartens. And guns and ammunition should be free and handed out at schools, police stations and convenience stores.

It would solve the overpopulation problem and produce a morally stronger populace, much needed if we are to fight off the hordes of Chinese gathering forces all around us.

Plus it will create jobs for those working in the gun industry and help the economy.

Of course guns had nothing to do with this. Er, I mean, if everybody involved had had a gun, this would never have happened.