This is terrible. St. Valentines Day Massacre all over again.

THE CYCLE

1. The gunman seeks attention before he dies, cuz to the psychopathic narcissist all attention, good or bad, is equally desirable.

2. He can get the most attention by killing "record" numbers of people, and the best place to do that is in a gun-free zone where the prey is defenseless. So he does.

3. The press then helps him out after the fact, by publicizing every little detail

4. Then the press also promotes more gun-free zones.

5. The next psychopathic narcissist sees all this and reaches a logical conclusion: go to step 1.

Press also advocates taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Ho-hum. Another nut with a gun, murdering people. Allegedly "pro-life" conservatives don't give a damn: their right to own a gun being more important to them than the rights of others not to be murdered by crazed nuts.

Yeah Herman, you just know he was a
pro life conservative don't you.
You don't find it troublesome that not
one of those targeted had enough sense
to know how to react to danger?
And by the way, he was so efficient with
his shooting, he's the only one who ended
up dead.
It's apparent you are one of those who does
not believe in the inherent right of self
defense. You're the kind I like to avoid
like the plague, you never know when the
fit will hit the shan.

Lets see now. Every flea bitten rag head in the world learned how to build a bomb and kill thousands of people. Take away the gun from the nut and he'll learn to make a bomb. What, 70 people would now be dead and no gun involved. It can and will happen. What will a brain dead liberal do then? Ban nails, nuts and bolts used in the bomb. These people are so crazy they are more dangerous than all the shooters. If not for liberal news attention they would go away and continue to play with themselves as they have they're entire life.

"Alledgedly "pro-life" conservatives dont give a damn."

So Herman I guess that must mean Your a pro-death liberal?

Herman - allegedly "pro-liberty" - will happily throw away all of his liberties so long as he retains the ability to kill fetuses. Not to mention disarm others to maintain the illusion of safety where there is none.

But... but... Herman, the school was a gun-free zone! What happened? Why didn't the rules stop the nut? How did he manage to not see and feel compelled to obey the rules, like his victims did?

J.

Many people in the news tonight are calling DeKalb a small rural community. That may be true when NIU is not in session, but when school is in, it's a well-populated community with great diversity, pulling in students from all over, but many from Chicago and vicinity. It just isn't the isolated rural campus that the news has been portraying it as. However, these things can happen anywhere.

I know that current thinking seems to be that we can't monitor the activity around an open college campus the way we can other schools, but I feel it's time we make a change in that thinking. There is no reason that metal detectors and security personnel couldn't be implemented at an entrance to this lecture hall, and the other buildings on campus. Our students must be protected from behavior that seems to be becoming more common. Students in a large classroom are much too easy a target for someone that can walk in the building with a weapon. If these were downtown office buildings and there had been threats regarding this type of incident a few months ago, the security would have happened. Our young students deserve the same.

My son's fiancée attends NIU. We got text messages from her, but the cells were too busy to get an actual call through for quite a while this evening. She and my son are visibly shaken, we all are.

"You don't find it troublesome that not
one of those targeted had enough sense
to know how to react to danger?" -- Maggie

You think they saw the bullets coming, Maggie??? Did your beloved Ronnie Reagan fail too to have enough sense to get out of the way???

"And by the way, he was so efficient with
his shooting, he's the only one who ended
up dead." -- Maggie

Maggie seems to be having reading problems. Let me help you out, Maggie -- note the part in bold:
"A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun from a stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing himself and four others, NIU Police Chief Donald Grady said."

"So Herman I guess that must mean Your a pro-death liberal?" -- 914

Question seems to be missing a verb somewhere, perhaps near the "Your". Work on it, 914, and then get back to us.

"Not to mention disarm others to maintain the illusion of safety where there is none." -- SPQR

Compare the homicide rates of both Great Britain and the U.S., SPQR, and get back to us. Before you do, SPQR, know that it is illegal in the U.K. to own a gun for self-defense.

"Herman, the school was a gun-free zone! What happened?" -- Mr. Tea

Uh, Jay, the country is not a gun free zone. Whether or not the school was is ultimately of little consequence.

**********************
Conservatives, try to think before you write. It would help.

Herman, I'm more knowledgable than you about Great Britain's gun laws. Not least because I have friends who are gun owners there. The comparison you propose is as dishonest as you usually are, Herman, as Britain's homicide rate was far lower than the US' before they began restricting the private ownership of firearms. Interestingly, the homicide rate in Great Britain - as well as other firearms-related crime - has been rising since their more recent extremist changes in gun laws. The latest proposals in Great Britain to "solve" their problems? Banning toy guns.

My son's best friend goes to NIU. It took him an hour to get a hold of her. She was off campus at the time.

As for Herman - he doesn't seem to get that gun-free means target rich to those with bad intentions. The NIU campus is like the rest of Illinois - only the bad guys carry.

"SPQR, know that it is illegal in the UK to own a gun for self defense."

So? they also still believe in KINGS QUEENS PRINCES AND PRINCESSE'S too. they have their laws We have ours..if You believe in theirs over ours feel free to move.

"uh, Jay the country is not a gun free zone. whether or not the school was is ultimately of little consequence."

Not to the victims dumbass

Herman is not here to discuss, but to inflame, cuz it gets him attention. Good or bad attention, doesn't matter, but attention nonetheless.

Slippery slope, Herman, and a matter of degree not kind, as is your objectification of groups of people into props in a play starring wonderful you.

914, Herman is misrepresenting British law a bit, playing a semantic game. But that's par for the course for Herman.

Herman, unlike you, I own up to mistakes.
The news I posted my info from was not
updated. I correct that part of my post.
I notice you skirt around the self defense
subject like you're afraid you might be
tainted if you discuss it.
As to bringing up guns in the UK, one half
of my family is british and self defenseless.
I enjoy getting news of a cousin being mugged
over and over, his car vandalized, not being able to do a thing about it.
It's always joyful hearing about another
cousin, a metro bobby, having his brains beat
out of his head by street thugs.
If I had the time I'd also go into one of your
favourite subjects socialized medicine. You'd
love hearing how 3 immediate family members were killed through shoddy service and neglect.
Oh and the wonderfully filthy hospitals they've
got over there now.
Yes, your ilk, so efficient, able, responsible,
and superior know it alls

Herman as to responding to danger, the least
a normal human being would do is be like a duck.
If you consistently tell a group to "feel" safe,
never jsa any situation, never use redundancy,
and always assume gun free zones are fuzzy warm
bunny rabbit safe, what happened will continue.
And your type who advocate against self defense
will continue to rail against guns.

the school was a gun-free zone! What happened? Why didn't the rules stop the nut?

Jay, I really don't understand why you continue to play this childish game. You keep making up scenarios and creating intentions that never existed, just so you can claim that they don't work.

"Gun-free zones" -- as you apparently have decided to label any place a shooting occurs -- are not intended to prevent nuts from shooting up the place. Restrictions are intended to prevent spontaneous incidents of someone getting angry and overreacting by drawing a gun on his opponent on the spur of the moment.

You can argue the merits of that intent if you like, argue its effectiveness, and even point out that it prevents someone from taking out a crazed shooter when necessary.

But you ought to stop making up the bullshit. It dramatically undermines your point.

Brian,

It's a tradeoff, then, is that what you're saying? Less "spontaneous incidents of someone getting angry and overreacting by drawing a gun" a.o.t more total deaths at the hands of crazed gunmen, as today?

You might, while you ponder the implications, also consider that the killing that dwarfs either of the above is that perpetrated by govts.

It has ever been so. For ex, name just the 10 worst genocides in history and the number of victims; all done by govt and totalling hundreds of millions.

Now name the total number killed by either spontaneous killings AND crazed gunmen. No contest, eh? And those genocides generally take place against a disarmed populace.

So here's a q that appears to be at the heart of the disagreement: Do you measure by the number of events or by the number of lives lost?

You appear to favor the former, wheras most of us here favor the latter. But I await your response.

Brian, I don't have to make things up -- I just have to be right. And I am:

http://dailypundit.com/?p=29570

The Student Handbook specifically states that any firearm brought on to campus needs written permission from Campus Security, and it must be locked up in the Security Office at all times.

Contrast this incident with the church shooting in Colorado. The college made damned sure there was no Jeanne Assam in that classroom.

The college, by demanding that the students, faculty, and staff go unarmed, made an implicit guarantee to them: "you don't need to worry about protecting yourself, because we'll protect you." Those people who died trusted the school's implicit promise.

J.

Civilization is having a gun and not using it. Not being allowed guns is daycare.

I'm actually thinking about looking into concealed carry and campus rules next time I take a semester at the local community college.

Perhaps, if the "No Guns Allowed" sign was written in bigger letters, and in 216 different languages and dialects.

Liberals would have us believe that a person intent on violating the "No mass murder allowed" rule would suddenly be swayed to a life of goodwill and charity upon seeing the "No guns allowed" sign posted at the school/shopping mall/city hall/etc.

You cannot alter the actions of sociopathic killers by passing laws and city ordinances outlawing the carrying of firearms.

If someone's going to shoot up a room full of people, and then kill himself when he's done, who in their right mind would think that the threat of a felony gun charge would deter him.

If I'm in a mall, and some nut comes in and starts shooting people, there will be injury and death.

Who in their right mind would prefer that the injured or killed include my wife and daughters rather that the homicidal whackjob?

Surrender your right to protect your family all you want, but if you try to forcibly take mine away, it might just be the last mistake you make.

Self defense is a HUMAN RIGHT? Take that away and you're just another ward of the state, stripped of what it means to be free.

Why does freedom scare so many people?

Oh, and Herman, get a grip, buddy.

Why does freedom scare so many people?

It scares those who are afraid they won't measure up.

The lefties like Herman cannot come to grips with the 2nd amendment. Gets in the way of their argument all the time. ww

"Gun-free zones" -- as you apparently have decided to label any place a shooting occurs -- are not intended to prevent nuts from shooting up the place. Restrictions are intended to prevent spontaneous incidents of someone getting angry and overreacting by drawing a gun on his opponent on the spur of the moment.

And did so well here. If you allow conceal-carry or allow people on a campus to use guns, this "angry" guy might have been taken out before he shot up all these people. But no, that's too dangerous.

It's not guns, it's society. People have kids without being married, broken homes are the norm, parents aren't parenting, kids get more attention from gangs than families. kids are encouraged to "express themselves" and are left to their own devices. Banning guns isn't going to change this-- criminals aren't going to suddenly say "oh gee, guns are illegal, I better not use them." even if they could get a gun they could build one, or a bomb, or simply use a different weapon. banning guns is just slapping a band-aid on the real problem, which is the cracked and broken society in which we live.

Sorry that should have read: "even if they couldn't get a gun they could build one..."

It's a tradeoff, then, is that what you're saying? Less "spontaneous incidents of someone getting angry and overreacting by drawing a gun" a.o.t more total deaths at the hands of crazed gunmen, as today?

You think that all of these incidents combined amount to fewer total deaths than those from mass shootings combined? I'd be interested in seeing the statistics that support that.

So here's a q that appears to be at the heart of the disagreement: Do you measure by the number of events or by the number of lives lost?
You appear to favor the former, wheras most of us here favor the latter. But I await your response.

I don't know where you get that impression, but it's not from anything I said.

Brian, I don't have to make things up -- I just have to be right. And I am:

Jay, your strawman must be getting very tired, given all the exercise it's getting.

I didn't say you made up the fact that they banned guns. I said you made up the intent of such bans.