Nearly 1,000 farewell Australian shot by 'bored' U.S. teens

Oh come on. Being shot to death is the same as a slap?

Oh for the love of god Cleo, what do you think the following line means:

It is not a reduction because an assault still took place, like I said you could argue that the severity of the incident was reduced but not the total number of violent incidents.

It means that the total number of violent crime is the same just that the severity was different.

Owning a gun is not a human right. If it were, the majority of the human race is being violated.

Well I believe it is being violated. Your government considers internet access a human right, do you agree with that?

I'm not really interested in the correlation between states with and without gun laws, and their respective death-by-firearm rates. They're all the same country, and until and unless everyone crossing state borders is subjected to the same kind of scrutiny and restrictions people crossing international borders are subject to, gun control laws in a state next to another state with lax laws are nothing but a farce and a mockery.

You do realize that actually helps prove my point and disproves yours.

Your comparison of homicide rates with gift cards is rather disturbing. A homicide means a dead person. There is nothing trivial about that.

So what you are saying is that the difference in frequency is very small and considering the sample size difference in failure rate is all but trivial. So when someone says 4.5 homicides per 100k is very high or really high that is really hyperbole on their part.

But if the claim is that Americans need guns to protect themselves because America is a violent society (the pro-gun argument, not mine), then simply having guns available in that society is surely dangerous?

No, it depends on who is buying the guns.

Nothing backfired at all. The idiots in question used a gun despite being in possession of a car to mow him down as you astutely pointed out. Yet they chose to use a gun.

The idiots in question would have killed this young man regardless if they had a gun or not and you know that.

You mocked the idea of a drive by shooting using bow and arrow, you mocked the idea of using a tractor to attack this young and claimed it wouldn't have worked because he could have out ran them but you ignored the fact that they were in a car meaning they could have just simply ran him over regardless of what ever else they had on them for a weapon. These idiots had made the decision to kill someone for the fun of it before they grabbed the gun and before they got into the car, this wasn't where they traveling around in the car for the fun of it with no intention of killing anyone and then saw this young man and said lets kill this person.

The fact that you believe this man would still be alive if these three idiots didn't have a gun is you being in denial.

That not only de-pimps your ride which takes money and time to fix, but tends to give you away to the police as well. Therefore, even punks as dumb as these tend to refrain.

Well these punks didn't pimp our their ride and you know gun fire coming out of your car tends to attract a lot of attention and gives you away to police. So please do tell us how these punks using guns helped them to escape capture from the authorities.

It is not a reduction because an assault still took place

Oh come on. Being shot to death is the same as a slap?

I would say that yes they are if they can't own one.

Then we must agree to differ on that. Owning a gun is not a human right. If it were, the majority of the human race is being violated.

I'm not really interested in the correlation between states with and without gun laws, and their respective death-by-firearm rates. They're all the same country, and until and unless everyone crossing state borders is subjected to the same kind of scrutiny and restrictions people crossing international borders are subject to, gun control laws in a state next to another state with lax laws are nothing but a farce and a mockery.

Your comparison of homicide rates with gift cards is rather disturbing. A homicide means a dead person. There is nothing trivial about that.

I would agree that giving a gun to someone violence prone is pouring fuel on the fire

But if the claim is that Americans need guns to protect themselves because America is a violent society (the pro-gun argument, not mine), then simply having guns available in that society is surely dangerous?

If people get slapped or thumped instead of shot dead, I think that counts as a reduction. And of course, a punch is (usually, not always) less severe than a bullet.

It is not a reduction because an assault still took place, like I said you could argue that the severity of the incident was reduced but not the total number of violent incidents.

Are Americans somehow deprived, are their human rights violated, when they travel overseas to countries where they are not allowed to own/carry guns? No they are not.

I would say that yes they are if they can't own one.

If the removal of guns from the equation brought the US murder rate down to the level of Spain, we'd be talking in terms of thousands or even tens of thousands of saved lives - not to mention the enhancement in life quality from not having to constantly look over your shoulder.

But as I have shown there are several states that homicide rates very near that of those European countries and there gun ownership rates as well as restrictive gun laws are all over the map. My second link also shows that gun ownership rates don't correspond with homicide rates in Europe. So I don't believe that the primary reason the US homicide rate is higher is due to guns nor due to how restrictive the gun laws are. For example gun homicides have fallen 50% in the last 20 years and non fatal assaults involving guns has fallen 75% in the last 20 years in the US. In fact if crime rates are going the way they are in the US they are on track to be the lowest homicide rate since 1906 in the US. If you read my second link you would know that it argues that socio-cultural reasons are what drive crime rates up or down not laws or prohibitions. I hate to break it to you but the vast majority of Americans are not in constant fear of looking over their own shoulder.

If you claim that the high murder rate in the US is not due to the availability of guns but to the innate bloodthirstiness and inherent violent nature of American society, then surely letting these thugs have access to lethal weapons is merely pouring oil on the fire? (And in making that claim, you're indulging in some pretty severe US-bashing).

Me personally I don't think a 4.5-5.5 per 100k is a high homicide rate. I find the difference of 3 or 4 people per 100,000 to be kind of trivial. For example if you were selling gift cards and this one brand of gift card failed to activate 5 times out of 100,000 scans and another only failed to activate 1 per 100,000 scans would you honestly say that 4 additional failure to activates per 100,000 scans is a very high failure rate? I wouldn't, I would consider it a trivial difference. I don't think the US is that much more bloodthirsty as you are making it sound like. Oh I would agree that giving a gun to someone violence prone is pouring fuel on the fire and as such they should pay the same the penalty for providing that weapon to that person.

The hell of running people down with your car is that your car tends to get damaged. That not only de-pimps your ride which takes money and time to fix, but tends to give you away to the police as well. Therefore, even punks as dumb as these tend to refrain.

Something needs to be done about the guns. Seriously.

"Oh yeah the pun and statement about how your mocking backfired definitely was intended."

Nothing backfired at all. The idiots in question used a gun despite being in possession of a car to mow him down as you astutely pointed out. Yet they chose to use a gun. That's one big fat surprise there for everyone not drunk on borderline insane NRA talking points.

I don't think the violence would be reduced, what you could argue is that the severity could possibly be reduced.

If people get slapped or thumped instead of shot dead, I think that counts as a reduction. And of course, a punch is (usually, not always) less severe than a bullet.

you have to balance how often something is owned and or used by the population for non violent means vs how often it is. When you are talking about tens of millions if not 100+ million people that enjoy guns safely and legally

Legally is just a matter of writing laws. Are Americans somehow deprived, are their human rights violated, when they travel overseas to countries where they are not allowed to own/carry guns? No they are not. Guns can be enjoyed safely in registered gun clubs, where they can be properly regulated, used safely and kept out of the hands of the violent people who want to kill.

The one percent figure was bottom of the range; if you compare America with Europe, assuming people are people, the difference between having guns and not having guns is much, much greater than one percent. If the removal of guns from the equation brought the US murder rate down to the level of Spain, we'd be talking in terms of thousands or even tens of thousands of saved lives - not to mention the enhancement in life quality from not having to constantly look over your shoulder. If you claim that the high murder rate in the US is not due to the availability of guns but to the innate bloodthirstiness and inherent violent nature of American society, then surely letting these thugs have access to lethal weapons is merely pouring oil on the fire? (And in making that claim, you're indulging in some pretty severe US-bashing).

Pun intended I trust....

Oh yeah the pun and statement about how your mocking backfired definitely was intended.

Yes, I think it will

Cleo, I don't think the violence would be reduced, what you could argue is that the severity could possibly be reduced.

If it's only one percent, that's over 100 lives a year. Of course it's worth it.

I disagree with that, you have to balance how often something is owned and or used by the population for non violent means vs how often it is. When you are talking about tens of millions if not 100+ million people that enjoy guns safely and legally and then want to ban them for just a little over 100 hundred people, that is just not worth it. If banning alcohol resulted in just over 100 lives a year being saved would it be worth it when you have tens of millions of people each year that drink alcohol and don't harm anyone? I would say no.

No, by claiming over and over that (1) Americans are so violent they'll carry on killing people at the present rate regardless of whether lethal weapons are readily available and (2) Americans need to carry guns to protect themselves from other out-of-control Americans (see (1))

I think the point that is being made is that those that kill are going to kill regardless of whatever weapon laws exist, that doesn't mean the society as a whole or even a very large minority are that violent.

I'm saying that difference is down in large part to the difference in the availability of lethal weapons; you're saying it's because Americans must be more bloodthirsty, they want to kill. I don't see how you can accuse me of US-bashing when you're the one making such terrible claims about your fellow-countrymen.

I disagree that a large part of the difference is due to availability of lethal weapons. For example this link shows that homicide rates are all over the place when it comes to gun ownership rates, how restrictive the laws are as homicide rates and populations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

This document/link basically shows that the number of guns per capita don't really impact homicide rates it also shows that people who commit violent crime are a very small minority of the population and usually are convicted of 2-4 felonies before committing homicide. This document also shows that gun ownership rates don't impact crime rates, either increasing them or decreasing them.

http://www.garymauser.net/pdf/KatesMauserHJPP.pdf

Extremely sorry that this sad event happened. Deep apologies to the nation of Australia.

The Aussies I hope at least that they're not the only ones incensed by this completely disgusting murder. It was the fact that there was absolutely no logical reasoning behind this except, "they wanted to be 'badasses'" and "didn't have anything else to do".

Since they're being tried as adults due to the complete senseless "motive" for their crime plus they've all been caught afterwards instead of still at large, the US public feels that justice will be served. One thing I love about our justice system is that a "child" isn't treated with kid gloves if they do something that normal children wouldn't do even if they're "bored". I grew up in the same type of "hopeless" situation, but either you focus on going nowhere, or you try to do what you can to rise up beyond the hopelessness.

Many of the prisoners who are visited by groups of school kids for them to learn what the consequences of committing crimes and gangbanging for a living keep telling these youths the same thing, "You can choose who or what you want to be, the only one who makes you who you are is you. Don't make the same choices I did to end up in here..."

Some listen and some don't.

you want to generalize an entire nation?

No I don't, and didn't.

Didn't we agree earlier today to respect and not belittle other nations ?

You're the one claiming the kids are messed up.

Seems it's the gun advocates who engage in US-bashing.

By clarifying their position on their rights to bear arms??

No, by claiming over and over that (1) Americans are so violent they'll carry on killing people at the present rate regardless of whether lethal weapons are readily available and (2) Americans need to carry guns to protect themselves from other out-of-control Americans (see (1))

But they can use other weapons as well, as in Europe. When you want to hurt someone or kill someone, you'll use anything.

See? Now you're doing it. According to NationMaster the murder rate in the US is 5 per 100,000; in France, Germany, Spain and Poland 1.31, 0.86, 0.9 and 1.21 respectively. I'm saying that difference is down in large part to the difference in the availability of lethal weapons; you're saying it's because Americans must be more bloodthirsty, they want to kill. I don't see how you can accuse me of US-bashing when you're the one making such terrible claims about your fellow-countrymen.

Since we all want to save the American youth. Why not raise the driving age to 18?

The Australian was shot, not hit by a car.

RIP. Not much changed in the USA. :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?yWg2vLEyRZc

Alphaape Aug. 28, 2013 - 04:40PM JST That is the real issue, poverty and lack of the will to want to do work in America. It can't all be the GOP's and the rich people's fault. As I mentioned, these kids are uneducated and unskilled,

The rate of gun deaths in the inner cities poorest neighborhoods was about ten times the rate compared to affluent neighborhoods. By growing up poor makes an individual person more likely to commit violence. They have low socioeconomic status, being on welfare, and living in bad neighborhood and high parental stress, since poverty has been shown to increase stress. But how could U.S. goverment reduce poverty in today's economic climate?

A country is made up of the people who live in it.

So you want to generalize an entire nation? Didn't we agree earlier today to respect and not belittle other nations ?

Seems it's the gun advocates who engage in US-bashing.

By clarifying their position on their rights to bear arms??

With or without guns, they say, Americans are dead set on killing each other because the society is broken. I say getting rid of the guns will at the very least make it a bit harder for people to shoot each other.

But they can use other weapons as well, as in Europe. When you want to hurt someone or kill someone, you'll use anything. Not buying it.

Since we all want to save the American youth. Why not raise the driving age to 18? This will save more lives than guns, knives, rocks, and baseball bats

President Obama commented on the Chris Lane murder and offered comments to the Lane family. Google "Obama Chris Lane" to get the links or see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/obama-christopher-lane-shooting_n_3822521.html

One can only assume that he delayed commenting on the murder due to his position and the possibility that the Justice Department may have to get involved if it's determined to be a hate crime, etc. The President stepped in it a few months ago when he said military personnel convicted of sexual assault should be stripped of rank, benefits, etc. Since he's the commander and chief of the military, those comments have come back to haunt him because defense lawyers in military sexual assault trials are claiming that guilty verdicts are the result of Obama's "undue command influence," i.e., juries are convicting their clients only to appease the President. For example, penalties in a recent Hawaii sex assault case were reduced because of his comments. Perhaps, in this case, his legal advisors urged him to "put his mind in gear, before putting his mouth in motion."

"back fires on you."

Pun intended I trust....

Nah, they used a gun instead. I wonder why, when afterall they had a car at their disposal.

Got to love it when your mocking back fires on you.

do you really think if you remove the guns the violence will stop?

No

will it be reduced?

Yes, I think it will

what percentage? Is it worth it?

If it's only one percent, that's over 100 lives a year. Of course it's worth it.

At the same time you need to deal with the gang culture too, of course. And the idea that shooting someone is any kind of solution to anything.

Cleo- do you really think if you remove the guns the violence will stop? No, it won't will it be reduced? Yes, I think it will but what percentage? Is it worth it?

Here in the US switchblade knives were made illegal in the 1950's because that was the weapon of choice in gangs. Has gang violence ceased or reduced?

The US is NOT messed up, stay focused. It's the kids that are messed up.

A country is made up of the people who live in it.

we declared a “War on Poverty” - and destroyed our society and created more poverty. We declared a “War on Drugs” - and destroyed our society and created more drug criminals. We declared a “War on Terror” - and destroyed our society

Seems it's the gun advocates who engage in US-bashing. With or without guns, they say, Americans are dead set on killing each other because the society is broken. I say getting rid of the guns will at the very least make it a bit harder for people to shoot each other.

The homicide rate for whites in the US is 2.6 /100,000 which is not far behind most European countries of .5-1.5

There's a huge difference between 0.5 and 2.6.

The obvious solution is to do something about gang violence that creates 80% of the gun violence in the country

That's part of the solution. The other part is to get rid of the gun culture.

"Well I would have thought it would have been fairly obvious to such a person of your intelligence that they would have just used the car they were in and ran him over."

Nah, they used a gun instead. I wonder why, when afterall they had a car at their disposal.

Banning cars and passing legislation for the compulsory arming of joggers is probably the only way to avoid similar senseless murders by all accounts.

The problem is that there are too many guns readily available with, as you say, no restrictions to people too 'bored' to make anything of themselves or respect the lives of others.

@ cleo: The gun laws worked in this case. The alleged shooter had a prior criminal record, and even went so far as to check in with his probation officer on the day of the shooting. If he would have tried to go out and buy a gun with the current laws, he would not have been able to(a convicted criminal).

Just like here in Japan, the bad guys will find ways to get guns no matter if they are legal or not. I would say the only aspect of gun control in this case would be the fact that the responsible adults that he was living with had a gun available. But if you look closely to his background, his mother is in jail. So again, she would have not been able to buy him a gun due to gun control laws in place.

These kids were just bad, plain and simple. They were just wanna be thugs from the heartland. Having grown up in areas like this, I can tell you where they get their ideas, from watching TV (BET, MTV) and the other glorification films and videos of the gangsta life in the US culture. These guys have probably never been outside their county, let alone to LA where the Bloods originated. All they know, they picked up from the media.

That is part of the tragedy in this story. And yes, his prior tweets about hating whites would in my opinion make this a hate crime, just as much as the two white guys who dragged their Black friend behind their truck in Jasper, TX back in 2000 when "W" was running for President, and the media tried to make it look as if under his leadership, this is what was going on in TX. Same situation here, except now the media and the law officials are afraid to call it for what it is due to that being unpoplular.

A bullet from an illegal gun kills with just as much efficiency as a bullet from a legal one. The problem isn't whether the gun was legal or illegal. The problem is that there are too many guns readily available with, as you say, no restrictions to people too 'bored' to make anything of themselves or respect the lives of others.

The homicide rate for whites in the US is 2.6 /100,000 which is not far behind most European countries of .5-1.5. Among blacks it is closer to 19 /100,000. The obvious solution is to do something about gang violence that creates 80% of the gun violence in the country instead of far reaching legislation that attempts to regulate legitimate owners.

Why isn't Obama speaking out about this case? Why isn't this about race? Simple, because black kids killed a white guy and in the messed up U.S. black people can't be racist.

Article is misleading. There were three teens involved: one was white, one was black, and one was biracial.

Prosecutors have said there is no evidence that the killing was racially motivated, despite Edwards posting remarks about his hatred of white people on social media earlier this year.

This is pretty clear, however. Edwards may hate white people, and that may have indeed factored into their decision to kill Lane, but there is no evidence to directly link the act to racial animus. If we are going to have "hate crimes" - a concept I am not entirely on board with - they have to consist of more than having the people involved be of different races, or the perpetrator having had said something racist in the past.

Can't use the tractor spree-killer this time since the victim was an athlete and would have simply outrun it. Bow and arrows drive-by? Noliving

Well I would have thought it would have been fairly obvious to such a person of your intelligence that they would have just used the car they were in and ran him over.

The removal of all gun regulations would make all gun owners, by definition, 'legitimate'. The country would still be awash with guns, though.

Although the murder rate among whites in the US has come down dramatically in the last 20 years even while gun ownership has exploded..Attempting to get guns off the street in addition to being counterproductive also doesn't explain why Chicago's murder rate, in a very tight firearm control state, is quadruple that of New York and double Los Angeles' rate despite New York having three times the number of people. The numbers recently coming down in Chicago are a direct result of better medical treatment for victims plus a coordinated and comprehensive gang reduction strategy among the city and police. Declaring a War on Guns is only going to promote killing in the same way we declared a “War on Poverty” - and destroyed our society and created more poverty. We declared a “War on Drugs” - and destroyed our society and created more drug criminals. We declared a “War on Terror” - and destroyed our society and created more terrorist actions etc.

Two teen killers need to be fried now. This is a hate crime. Bet that black Prez will say nothing about it 'cause the victim is white.

Its rather annoying to see random arguments of pure imagination tossed out there willy nilly when the experience of many other countries proves that gun regulations work to keep guns out of the hands of mere teen punks like this at least. Geez. Is it really that hard to figure out? America is not a country in a vacuum. There is a whole planet here. Sure, there might be some unique features to America, but they ain't all that. What black marketeer would sell to these punks if there were more danger for doing it? And if he was that stupid? It would be one less completely stupid black marketeer to worry about because these punks would turn him in on the plea bargain.

The only reason I can think of for all this expended mental energy to come up with these arguments of pure imagination is having a gun fetish.

I agree that it is a dangerous precedent to increase jail time based on social media postings however much in this case the guy is 100% a gangbanging racist. Prosecutors need to prove some relationship between homicide and the perpetrator’s state of mind at the time of the crime which establishes the offender’s criminal act must have been motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias. But young black men are like 3% of the population of the US and commit 50% of the murders even if being a victim of white racism itself is not the reason these communities are bathing in a culture of violence and crime.

This is part of the same reasoning that Nadal Hassan's killing of 13 at Ft. Hood is not called a terrorist plot, simply to be PC and not offend.

Alphaape,

Your entire post in my opinion was outstanding, thank you for posting your personal take and your perspective on this horrible, horrible crime.

They should at least be given life. Maybe they'll be less 'bored' behind bars.

The gun was a .22 caliber rifle as was reported last week. It must have been a very well placed shot to have killed Chris Lane due to its weak ballistics. Readily available and one of the most popular calibers due to low cost to shoot. Can it be lethal? Yes if the shot is placed precisely to vital areas.

Why isn't Obama speaking out about this case? Why isn't this about race?

Don't know. Obama is a selective speaker. Same goes out to the race hustlers as well.

Simple, because black kids killed a white guy and in the messed up U.S. black people can't be racist.

The US is NOT messed up, stay focused. It's the kids that are messed up. And yes, some Blacks think that racism only affects white people and not black, that thinking in itself is racist and blacks can equally be just as racist. This was a racial attack and having a white guy as a driver doesn't change that fact.

"The problem is that there are too many guns readily available with, as you say, no restrictions to people too 'bored' "

I'll be interested to hear the NRA talking points coming soon to this page. Can't use the tractor spree-killer this time since the victim was an athlete and would have simply outrun it. Bow and arrows drive-by? Noliving?

" Mr Ford, who is running the investigation into the shooting in Duncan, Oklahoma on Friday, said that the execution-style killings that he had seen in the past-which he called 'pretty brutal stuff'- were nothing compared to Lane's murder. 'There's no connection between the victim and the killers,' Duncan police chief Ford told The Herald Sun. 'They are evil, yeah I'll go with evil. They have no feelings for anyone, could not care less,' he said of the accused killers. 'One thing's for sure, someone was going to die that day, whether it was a kid riding a bicycle or someone mowing their lawn. We are so sorry it happened to Christopher Lane.'"

Cleo, I understand what you're trying to say. These hoods either have Crip connections or were trying to get the initiation done. They are already into the criminal career path. Check their social media postings and images.

I've yet to find info about how these low-lifes had access to guns in the first place. Media silence on that.

I agree with galapagoslongname, no way the gun laws will change.

@JeanValJean it wouldn't be because the abundance of weaponry? Surely not!

Did these punks have legal access to the guns? No. Such people get them illegally, black market where there are no restrictions.

A bullet from an illegal gun kills with just as much efficiency as a bullet from a legal one. The problem isn't whether the gun was legal or illegal. The problem is that there are too many guns readily available with, as you say, no restrictions to people too 'bored' to make anything of themselves or respect the lives of others.

Gun regulations only punish legitimate owners.

The removal of all gun regulations would make all gun owners, by definition, 'legitimate'. The country would still be awash with guns, though.

" stepped up international pressure on the US to bring about more stringent gun regulations toward helping to curb the nation's gun violence."

Here It is again. Gun regulations. Did these punks have legal access to the guns? No. Such people get them illegally, black market where there are no restrictions. Gun regulations only punish legitimate owners.

As a US citizen, I wholeheartedly welcome any and all pressure on the US from the people of Australia and citizens from elsewhere.

Sensato@I hate to tell you this, but... back in Oct. 1992 there was a similar outcry when a Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori rang the wrong doorbell in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and got blown away for his troubles. You'd be amazed by the number of Americans at that time who leaped to defend the shooter based on the so-called "castle doctrine." (He was found not guilty of homicide in a jury trial.) Sadly, all too many American gun owners harbor a Walter Mittyesque "homicidal fantasy" that involves the use of their weapons to rid the world of bad guys, a mindset conditioned by Stallone, Willis, Bronson and other Hollywood heroes and fed by violent video games, etc. But for the most part, visiting tourists have been spared the worst of it, partially because they are unlikely to spend any time in out of the way places like Duncan, Oklahoma.

FYI - There are Black Americans who speak out against these type of incidents but they usually get ignored or are not popular enough to make big enough of a noise for people to take notice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkeGNVARFxo

Prosecutors have said there is no evidence that the killing was racially motivated, despite Edwards posting remarks about his hatred of white people on social media earlier this year.

This is part of the same reasoning that Nadal Hassan's killing of 13 at Ft. Hood is not called a terrorist plot, simply to be PC and not offend. Hate to say it, but they don't want mass groups of whites gathering in groups talking about this issue, thinking that it will just lead to more violence just like they didn't want the majority of Americans gathering and causing violence against Muslims in Nadal's case. But it is ok for the media and the others with an agenda to get together and play the race card when a white guy kills a black.

I am Black, and I think what these three low lifes did was terrible. Even though it is in my opinion a race issue, there is another issue at hand, and that is class/poverty. The one white perp, who is only 17 was in court backed by his family, and his pregnant 15 year old girlfriend. That is the key issue right there, young unskilled, and uneducated people who don't have any talent or skills making babies, brining up kids totally dependent on the state to provide support. I feel sorry for that unborn kid, since his/her life is pretty much laid out for them before they are even born with parents like these.

That is the real issue, poverty and lack of the will to want to do work in America. It can't all be the GOP's and the rich people's fault. As I mentioned, these kids are uneducated and unskilled, yet the same type of person can come across the border from Central America and find a job doing menial work and in some cases make it. So why can't these guys? Because they don't have a sense of personal responsibility, and the random killing of someone just proves it.

Why on earth did the writer of this call them "black" teens? Would you have called them "white teens" if they were?? Stop sensationalizing the "bored" quote, obviously that's not the real reason, the real reason is that these individuals are sick in the head and anything that comes out of their mouth should not be considered rational.

I don't think it was a hate crime. It goes beyond being merely shocking and into a whole new realm. In past decades, the media used to refer to such criminals as "mad-dog killers" (with no offense meant to dogs).

If there is any silver lining in this travesty, then it would have to be that of stepped up international pressure on the US to bring about more stringent gun regulations toward helping to curb the nation's gun violence.

As a US citizen, I wholeheartedly welcome any and all pressure on the US from the people of Australia and citizens from elsewhere. Along those lines, I have been very pleased that the Australian public has been voicing their outrage toward the US's fanatical gun ownership rights mentality, and that former deputy PM Fischer openly criticized the National Rifle Association while also asserting that Australians should boycott travel to the US in order to pressure the American government to make changes. This tragedy has also spurred awareness and dialog in the US about Australia's success at initiating strict gun control in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre — a good starting point for the US to follow.

Change is unlikely to come anytime soon, but every bit of pressure from abroad and domestically helps.

3 teens, all messed up! One white, one half black and white, and one black but all completely messed up! Bored?? So time to kill somebody?? Anybody?? This is really messed up!! RIP poor Aussie dude in messed Oklahoma

" Why isn't Obama speaking out about this case?"

It isn't politically correct to refer to black-on-white crimes as racist.

The fatal beating of an 88-year-old white WWII vet by two black teens isn't racist, either.

Sincere condolences to the family and friends of the promising and popular young man slain so callously.

Yeah, the issue --or non-issue in this case-- is that the 3 perps were arrested right away. In other words, the system worked timely in this case. Even the prosecutors don't believe he was targeted mainly because of his race, despite the perps' previous writing "hate 90% of whites." He just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, unfortunately. RIP

Its less about race and more about the cultures that certain races are born into.

I believe three punks were arrested for this crime. Two were black and one was half white/black.

Prosecutors have said there is no evidence that the killing was racially motivated, despite Edwards posting remarks about his hatred of white people on social media earlier this year.

Why isn't Obama speaking out about this case? Why isn't this about race?

Simple, because black kids killed a white guy and in the messed up U.S. black people can't be racist.