Elder Rampage Shootings: Is It "Age Rage?"

[Circe]

Just now the headlines are saying that Jimmy Lee Dyke, age 65, has been killed by the FBI after he started pulling out a gun in his bunker with the child Ethan whom he took as a hostage after killing the school bus driver.

I am concerned with the number of elderly rampage shooters starting to occur -- surely quite a new phenomenon! and I think it may be the baby boom generation gradually getting what used to be called "hardening of the arteries" --- paranoia of age.

Another one was William Spengler, age 62, who was a felon who had killed his grandmother as a young person, but had lived without obvious crime for decades, and then suddenly broke out: killed his sister, set a fire, shot four firefighters, seven houses burned down entirely, and he then killed himself like the young people do.

The man who shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington was 88! James von Brunn only killed the security guard (who wasn't Jewish) but he meant to kill as many as he could. He was a known anti-semite, but hadn't been in crime trouble before -- he just suddenly broke out, as these paranoids do.

What is going on here? These men get old and get paranoid and angrier and angrier and suddenly decide it's a GOOD idea to go out and shoot a lot of people. When they had not done anything like that before! I think the country needs to take this seriously, and watch out for serious paranoia warning signs in older men ---- who own a lot of guns.

These old guys are nearly as bad as the crazy kids. What do people think should be done about this? If anything --

 

[PaulS1950]

Well, I suggest you watch me if you are affraid of old people.
I am approaching that age group but then I don't hate anyone or group and I am not a criminal and the only area that I have any fanaticism is protection of our rights - so I am more likely to defend you than go on a rage rampage and kill people.

You can't focus on one aspect of a person and make the connection from that to a crime they commit. Well, you can but it doesn't address the cause of the crime and you place a stigmatism on others who share that one aspect but have little chance of committing the same or similar crimes.

After someone commits a crime it is easier to look at the traits they have exhibited, their hatreds, and fears and piece it all together with a trigger that set them off but it doesn't work the other way because most of us have a moral "shut-down" switch that keeps us from doing the unspeakable. Two people with identical hatreds and fears will respond differently to the the same circumstances based on a whole set of other governing forces within our personalities. People are just too complex to be able to reliably predict the manner in which they will respond in any set of circumstances.

 

[Circe]

Well, I suggest you watch me if you are affraid of old people.
I am approaching that age group but then I don't hate anyone or group and I am not a criminal and the only area that I have any fanaticism is protection of our rights - so I am more likely to defend you than go on a rage rampage and kill people.

You can't focus on one aspect of a person and make the connection from that to a crime they commit. Well, you can but it doesn't address the cause of the crime and you place a stigmatism on others who share that one aspect but have little chance of committing the same or similar crimes.

After someone commits a crime it is easier to look at the traits they have exhibited, their hatreds, and fears and piece it all together with a trigger that set them off but it doesn't work the other way because most of us have a moral "shut-down" switch that keeps us from doing the unspeakable. Two people with identical hatreds and fears will respond differently to the the same circumstances based on a whole set of other governing forces within our personalities. People are just too complex to be able to reliably predict the manner in which they will respond in any set of circumstances.

This is a good post, and I appreciate your addressing the issue.

I am worried that there is a trend here that is going along with the baby boom aging out. (Me, too.) Not only are there getting to be more and more people in this age with organic paranoia, but also there is a huge fashion right now for people having giant collections of guns, especially guns designed for shooting other people. And there is a lot of anger in this seriously divided land, and most of the anger is from the right, the gun-owning right.

I'm worried about the combination. Age rage paranoia plus LOTS of guns plus generalized anger. We are starting to see a lot of old guys going on rampages, and you have to admit, that was not expected! That's just weird.

States are very aware that there is a problem with older people driving and we are tested more, repeatedly, for that reason. I am wondering if there is going to be a problem perceived with older men having lots of guns. I know of TWO older men whose families did sort of .....take and sell off their guns. I know one person who quite simply stole her mother's carkeys when her mother kept on driving when she said she wouldn't (she had had three accidents within six weeks --- it was clear she was likely to kill someone).

I wouldn't bring this up if there weren't this strange problem developing with older men in their 60s and up going on sudden shooting rampages, as we have seen lately.

Should guns properly be confiscated from older men who are showing signs of anger and paranoia and have a lot of guns?

 

[PaulS1950]

I am worried that there is a trend here that is going along with the baby boom aging out. (Me, too.) Not only are there getting to be more and more people in this age with organic paranoia, but also there is a huge fashion right now for people having giant collections of guns, especially guns designed for shooting other people. And there is a lot of anger in this seriously divided land, and most of the anger is from the right, the gun-owning right.

I'm worried about the combination. Age rage paranoia plus LOTS of guns plus generalized anger. We are starting to see a lot of old guys going on rampages, and you have to admit, that was not expected! That's just weird.

States are very aware that there is a problem with older people driving and we are tested more, repeatedly, for that reason. I am wondering if there is going to be a problem perceived with older men having lots of guns. I know of TWO older men whose families did sort of .....take and sell off their guns. I know one person who quite simply stole her mother's carkeys when her mother kept on driving when she said she wouldn't (she had had three accidents within six weeks --- it was clear she was likely to kill someone).

I wouldn't bring this up if there weren't this strange problem developing with older men in their 60s and up going on sudden shooting rampages, as we have seen lately.

Should guns properly be confiscated from older men who are showing signs of anger and paranoia and have a lot of guns?

You assert that "there getting to be more and more people in this age with organic paranoia" and "especially guns designed for shooting other people" and "We are starting to see a lot of old guys going on rampages". I understand that you are worried but upon what do you base your assertions?

You say that you wouldn't bring it up except for the "problem" of men of 60 and older going on shooting rampages; do you have evidence for this concept? I know a lot of old guys with guns and yet I have heard of no "shooting rampages" at all. I have seen in the news where a couple of individuals have killed in the commission of a crime but nothing along the lines that you are talking about.

I would like to see what evidence upon whichyou are basing your worry about me and other men like me. I assure you that I am not going to run out and commit a crime and I surely won't consider using my guns for any purpose other than defending you or others from criminal acts in a lawful manner.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Should guns properly be confiscated from older men who are showing signs of anger and paranoia and have a lot of guns?

I believe you are placing too much emphasis on gun possession, especially in your references to multiple guns, when in fact one's affinity for guns does not in any way indicate or suggest a tendency to homicidal violence.

If an older person, or a younger person, decides to kill a lot of people but doesn't have a lot of guns, all it takes is one gun to accommodate an efficient shooting rampage and an older person can just as easily go out and buy one as can a younger person. All it takes is some money.

I strongly suggest that rather than immediate access to guns the more likely reason why a senior might strike out violently at a group, or randomly, is a combination of festering anger and gradual expiration of the will to live.

The first consideration in seeking a likely prospect for a senior rampage event is one who is alone, i.e., no one to care or to care for. This status combined with rising anger at a given group, or at society in general, can serve as the primary components of festering rage. The means by which the rage may be expressed, i.e., gun(s), is secondary. First comes the urge -- then the means.

I will assume that right now there are individuals who harbor homicidal loathing for such groups as Democrats, Republicans, Blacks, Whites, Muslims, Jews, etc., and some who simply cannot tolerate the direction American society has taken in recent years and are tormented by a festering hatred for people in general. Those who have something to live for will be deterred from acting out their homicidal urges. Those who have no good reason for getting out of bed in the morning will not be so deterred. And all that remains for those who have no guns is to get some, which is easy.

So it seems the cause of the shooting rampage problem is software, not hardware. Our society is producing more and more crazies every year. These crazies are beginning to act out more and more and we are looking in the wrong places for answers as to why. I suggest the answer is America has gone insane. And if we would step back and examine the big picture more closely the cause(s) will become more clear.

 

[Circe]

You assert that "there getting to be more and more people in this age with organic paranoia" and "especially guns designed for shooting other people" and "We are starting to see a lot of old guys going on rampages". I understand that you are worried but upon what do you base your assertions?

The baby boom: there are certainly going to be more and more people with the illnesses of old age as the baby boom lump works its way through the demographics. Guns designed for shooting other people are the ones that they want to ban, and the ones like the semi-automatic handguns being used in so many rampage shootings and that can be attached to high-capacity magazines, as Adam Lanza did: these are guns designed to kill people. That's their function, which is an illegal function. Like buying an Audi because it goes 120 miles an hour......but wait.........

You say that you wouldn't bring it up except for the "problem" of men of 60 and older going on shooting rampages; do you have evidence for this concept? I know a lot of old guys with guns and yet I have heard of no "shooting rampages" at all. I have seen in the news where a couple of individuals have killed in the commission of a crime but nothing along the lines that you are talking about.

There have been lots, the ones I mentioned in the OP and others just lately. People think it's just the schizophrenic suicidal kids, but it's not: it's also old guys who suddenly burst out, as all these did, from no previous or recent history of violence suddenly doing stranger killings.

[quoteI would like to see what evidence upon which you are basing your worry about me and other men like me. I assure you that I am not going to run out and commit a crime and I surely won't consider using my guns for any purpose other than defending you or others from criminal acts in a lawful manner.[/QUOTE]

How can you know you won't run around shooting people? We might any of us get senile: that's what is going on with these old guys, you know. That's the problem. It's like older people killing people with cars -- they shouldn't be driving, but no one dealt with it. Same deal is going on here. They just aren't safe with a lot of guns anymore: they get paranoid and angry and suddenly run out shooting people like the guy with his bunker and the hostage kid.

I don't say I know what to do -- except that I think if there is family, people have a responsibility to get the guns to a safe place, get the car keys if necessary, do what it takes to keep these terrible things from happening out of pure senility. It could happen to any of us.

 

[PaulS1950]

I suppose I should have answered the question you posed;
Yes, guns should be properly confiscated from anyone - not just old people like me - who commits a crime. There is no way to "properly" confiscate guns from those who have not committed a crime.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guns designed for shooting other people are the ones that they want to ban, and the ones like the semi-automatic handguns being used in so many rampage shootings and that can be attached to high-capacity magazines, as Adam Lanza did: these are guns designed to kill people. That's their function, which is an illegal function. Like buying an Audi because it goes 120 miles an hour......but wait.........

A gun designed for shooting other people makes the best defensive gun to use against violent criminals.

 

[Circe]

[...]

Should guns properly be confiscated from older men who are showing signs of anger and paranoia and have a lot of guns?

I believe you are placing too much emphasis on gun possession, especially in your references to multiple guns, when in fact one's affinity for guns does not in any way indicate or suggest a tendency to homicidal violence.

I can't agree with that. It's a bad sign. If people have a lot of guns, especially the weaponry designed to kill people like the ones some people want to ban, that is a marker, IMO, for festering anger. You don't have all those guns because they are beautiful or for any reason except an active fantasy life involving murder, IMO. I have a lot of yarn because I particularly want to knit. Some men have a lot of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and Glocks and Sig Sauers because they wish they could kill, kill, kill.

If an older person, or a younger person, decides to kill a lot of people but doesn't have a lot of guns, all it takes is one gun to accommodate an efficient shooting rampage and an older person can just as easily go out and buy one as can a younger person. All it takes is some money.

I agree, and sometimes you see that, but usually these spree killers, of whatever age, have a bunch of mean-looking guns, because they've been thinking and dreaming about killing for a long, long time.

I strongly suggest that rather than immediate access to guns the more likely reason why a senior might strike out violently at a group, or randomly, is a combination of festering anger and gradual expiration of the will to live.

The first consideration in seeking a likely prospect for a senior rampage event is one who is alone, i.e., no one to care or to care for. This status combined with rising anger at a given group, or at society in general, can serve as the primary components of festering rage. The means by which the rage may be expressed, i.e., gun(s), is secondary. First comes the urge -- then the means.

I will assume that right now there are individuals who harbor homicidal loathing for such groups as Democrats, Republicans, Blacks, Whites, Muslims, Jews, etc., and some who simply cannot tolerate the direction American society has taken in recent years and are tormented by a festering hatred for people in general. Those who have something to live for will be deterred from acting out their homicidal urges. Those who have no good reason for getting out of bed in the morning will not be so deterred. And all that remains for those who have no guns is to get some, which is easy.

So it seems the cause of the shooting rampage problem is software, not hardware. Our society is producing more and more crazies every year. These crazies are beginning to act out more and more and we are looking in the wrong places for answers as to why. I suggest the answer is America has gone insane. And if we would step back and examine the big picture more closely the cause(s) will become more clear.

Wonderful post. I entirely agree. I have no idea what to do about any of this! Except that I think family should take it more seriously as these men get older and more isolated. Though as you point out, probably the spree killers don't have family. That does seem to be pretty much the case, though sometimes they just kill what family they have -- the guy who shot the firefighters killed his sister first.

I love your point that we are getting more and more crazies every year, and that is so true! It reminds me that there was another such situation -- around the turn of the 19th -- 20th century when anarchists were constantly assassinating everyone, presidents, kings, royalty, prime ministers, they really caused a terrible problem. And they were just as crazy as hoot owls, every one of them. The classic "lone wolf" as it is called today, with a loose political idea that didn't make much sense, nor did the assassinations. It was a way to describe their craziness, mostly.

Well, here we are again! Only the crazies are doing rampage killings of strangers rather than going after presidents and kings and so on. Easier to kill a lot of first-graders, I guess.

 

[PaulS1950]

You ask; "How can you know you won't run around shooting people? We might any of us get senile: that's what is going on with these old guys, you know. That's the problem. It's like older people killing people with cars -- they shouldn't be driving, but no one dealt with it. Same deal is going on here. They just aren't safe with a lot of guns anymore".

How can you or anyone know I will?
There are a lot more people killed with cars driven by younger folks than by old guys like me.
You point to three incidents where 6 innocent lives were lost and call it "rampage killing"? One person was responsible for five of the deaths and they were family members. Of the other two only one killed another person. I have a hard time classifying these as anything but very sad events. They certainly are not "rampages" nor do they seem to point to anything approaching a concern. Three distinctly different events with no ties between them and not even incedental commonality other than a wide range of age.
If something this disconnected worries you perhaps you should seek help. I am not trying to degrade you or your concerns but it sounds like you need some professional help in dealing with irrational fears. If you were my wife I would get you to a cousellor right away. I am truely concerned for you.

 

[Circe]

You ask; "How can you know you won't run around shooting people? We might any of us get senile: that's what is going on with these old guys, you know. That's the problem. It's like older people killing people with cars -- they shouldn't be driving, but no one dealt with it. Same deal is going on here. They just aren't safe with a lot of guns anymore".

How can you or anyone know I will?

I don't know you will; I hope and assume you will not. You seem pretty sane to me right now. But none of these old Age Rage guys were violent before, sooooooooooooooo ---- they suddenly broke out, and therefore anyone might.

If something this disconnected worries you perhaps you should seek help. I am not trying to degrade you or your concerns but it sounds like you need some professional help in dealing with irrational fears. If you were my wife I would get you to a cousellor right away. I am truely concerned for you.

You're just getting mad, now, because I don't agree with you.

I'm not going to discuss the issue on that level. If you want to talk about these things politely, great. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"Never kick an old dog. He may have one bite left." R.H.

 

[MikeK]

I can't agree with that. It's a bad sign. If people have a lot of guns, especially the weaponry designed to kill people like the ones some people want to ban, that is a marker, IMO, for festering anger. You don't have all those guns because they are beautiful or for any reason except an active fantasy life involving murder, IMO. I have a lot of yarn because I particularly want to knit. Some men have a lot of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines and Glocks and Sig Sauers because they wish they could kill, kill, kill.

Circe,

I respectfully suggest your opinion of gun collectors is predicated on a personal lack of affinity for weapons, which is simply a matter of individual preference or conditioning. However, I acknowledge and respect your obvious intelligence and would appreciate knowing your thoughts on my recently posted thread entitled, Why do I like guns?

(Quote)

Why Do I Like Guns?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Creationists will reject all I have to say here, if they have a more plausible explanation for why some people have a strong affinity for firearms (other than the over-used small penis Freudianism) I'd be interested in reading it.


At the stage of his evolution, when evolving Man came down from the trees and moved about on the ground, he became easy prey for a variety of well-armed predators whose turf he chose to occupy. Because without any specialized natural weapons, such as large canine teeth, sharp claws, or exceptional strength and agility, he was, as Desmond Morris aptly described him, The Naked Ape. And had he remained so poorly equipped for survival in a violently dangerous world the human species would have occupied no more than a mere moment in a history of which there would be no record.

But this pathetically vulnerable creature had something very special going for him. It was an exceptionally active and versatile brain, a cerebral mutation which enabled him to realize something that altered the universe he'd come to inhabit. He discovered that he could stand erect, pick up a stout fallen tree branch, and swing it hard enough to severely injure or at least repel just about any of the frightening predators which had previously ravaged his kind at will. And he thus graduated from the status of naked ape into that of Man -- the weapon maker. Eventually the most fearsome predator of all.

In the epochs that followed, the evolving brain of this thinking animal produced such progressively lethal devices as stone axes, spears, and flint-napped daggers, weapons which enabled him to easily and effectively defend against any other creature in his world but one. His own kind.

I am an accomplished competitive archer. I don't hunt and all of my equipment is specifically designed or adapted for target shooting. But with a hunting bow I could easily send a razor sharp broadhead hunting arrow into a man-size target at ninety meters. And I often wonder about the naked ape whose brain enabled the leap forward from standing toe-to-toe with another stone ax-wielding homo-sapiens, to that of an application of the applied physics of stored energy and motion made possible by combining a flexible tree branch, a strand of strong hide, and a straightened, sharpened stick. I believe that burst of inventive brilliance to be a development in weapons technology which rivals if not surpasses the historic significance of the the atomic bomb.

For centuries the bow and arrows reigned as the ultimate weapon, epitomized by enabling a small group of vastly outnumbered English archers to defeat the French at the Battle of Agincourt. But using the bow effectively is much easier said than done. The fact is it takes years of long and arduous practice and the development of special muscles to acquire the skill needed to make effective use of the bow as a reasonably accurate long-range weapon.

So the next stage in the evolution of weapons technology was the crossbow, which anyone who is strong enough to cock it can make fairly effective use of at up to a fifty yard range, beyond which the trajectory of the bolt (arrow) begins to drop significantly.

The Chinese are credited with the discovery of gunpowder and creation of the earliest firearm, a crude hand-cannon that propelled rocks for a short distance with little to no accuracy. But that burst of science-based ingenuity gave rise to a relatively rapid progression of increasingly brilliant developments in the brief history of firearms, culminating in the examples of modern "assault" rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, revolvers and automatic pistols.

The bottom line to all this is the question; why do I like guns? And the answer is without them I am a naked ape.

A disarmed man is like a de-clawed cat.

(End quote)


While I agree the primary purpose of guns is to inflict lethal injury, having the ability to do that does not necessarily indicate a desire or intention to do so.

I'm sure you know there are many schools that teach a variety of martial arts. Students, including my oldest granddaughter, who achieve a high level of proficiency in karate, for one example, are capable of inflicting severe to lethal damage to another person using their hands, feet, or a number of specialized weapons. While there undoubtedly are individuals who are inclined for one reason or other to wrongfully make use of their lethal skill the vast majority of martial arts aficionados diligently avoid any such encounters.

 

[Circe]

I respectfully suggest your opinion of gun collectors is predicated on a personal lack of affinity for weapons, which is simply a matter of individual preference or conditioning. However, I acknowledge and respect your obvious intelligence and would appreciate knowing your thoughts on my recently posted thread entitled, Why do I like guns?

(Quote)

Why Do I Like Guns?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Creationists will reject all I have to say here, if they have a more plausible explanation for why some people have a strong affinity for firearms (other than the over-used small penis Freudianism) I'd be interested in reading it.


At the stage of his evolution, when evolving Man came down from the trees and moved about on the ground, he became easy prey for a variety of well-armed predators whose turf he chose to occupy. Because without any specialized natural weapons, such as large canine teeth, sharp claws, or exceptional strength and agility, he was, as Desmond Morris aptly described him, The Naked Ape. And had he remained so poorly equipped for survival in a violently dangerous world the human species would have occupied no more than a mere moment in a history of which there would be no record.

But this pathetically vulnerable creature had something very special going for him. It was an exceptionally active and versatile brain, a cerebral mutation which enabled him to realize something that altered the universe he'd come to inhabit. He discovered that he could stand erect, pick up a stout fallen tree branch, and swing it hard enough to severely injure or at least repel just about any of the frightening predators which had previously ravaged his kind at will. And he thus graduated from the status of naked ape into that of Man -- the weapon maker. Eventually the most fearsome predator of all.

In the epochs that followed, the evolving brain of this thinking animal produced such progressively lethal devices as stone axes, spears, and flint-napped daggers, weapons which enabled him to easily and effectively defend against any other creature in his world but one. His own kind.

I am an accomplished competitive archer. I don't hunt and all of my equipment is specifically designed or adapted for target shooting. But with a hunting bow I could easily send a razor sharp broadhead hunting arrow into a man-size target at ninety meters. And I often wonder about the naked ape whose brain enabled the leap forward from standing toe-to-toe with another stone ax-wielding homo-sapiens, to that of an application of the applied physics of stored energy and motion made possible by combining a flexible tree branch, a strand of strong hide, and a straightened, sharpened stick. I believe that burst of inventive brilliance to be a development in weapons technology which rivals if not surpasses the historic significance of the the atomic bomb.

For centuries the bow and arrows reigned as the ultimate weapon, epitomized by enabling a small group of vastly outnumbered English archers to defeat the French at the Battle of Agincourt. But using the bow effectively is much easier said than done. The fact is it takes years of long and arduous practice and the development of special muscles to acquire the skill needed to make effective use of the bow as a reasonably accurate long-range weapon.

So the next stage in the evolution of weapons technology was the crossbow, which anyone who is strong enough to cock it can make fairly effective use of at up to a fifty yard range, beyond which the trajectory of the bolt (arrow) begins to drop significantly.

The Chinese are credited with the discovery of gunpowder and creation of the earliest firearm, a crude hand-cannon that propelled rocks for a short distance with little to no accuracy. But that burst of science-based ingenuity gave rise to a relatively rapid progression of increasingly brilliant developments in the brief history of firearms, culminating in the examples of modern "assault" rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, revolvers and automatic pistols.

The bottom line to all this is the question; why do I like guns? And the answer is without them I am a naked ape.

A disarmed man is like a de-clawed cat.

(End quote)


While I agree the primary purpose of guns is to inflict lethal injury, having the ability to do that does not necessarily indicate a desire or intention to do so.

I'm sure you know there are many schools that teach a variety of martial arts. Students, including my oldest granddaughter, who achieve a high level of proficiency in karate, for one example, are capable of inflicting severe to lethal damage to another person using their hands, feet, or a number of specialized weapons. While there undoubtedly are individuals who are inclined for one reason or other to wrongfully make use of their lethal skill the vast majority of martial arts aficionados diligently avoid any such encounters.

Very thoughtful post, and thank you for your ability to discuss things well!

I am by no means as against guns or your basic position as you think --- I have guns, I go to gun ranges, I use guns as tools (we have a farm), though certainly I am no collector or gun glorifier. I have also taken martial arts classes, like your granddaughter, and greatly approve of women learning these skills --- better that first, IMO.

The points you make in your excellent essay are these, I think: 1) "man is man's wolf," as a Latin saying had it -- we are our own most important enemies by far. I agree: intraspecific evolution is what humans do, we take over each other's resources and kill the occupants of the land we want who have the stuff we want. 2) Historically, most weapons were too hard for most people to use for defense, since they took much training and practice and strength. 3) Guns are the Great Equalizer. Even women can defend themselves now that there are guns.

I agree with all this. However, it's not relevant to my fundamental point, which is not anti-gun but anti-glorying in guns, anti-fantasy of killing lots of people. I would think a person who can reach one or a few guns in the house is not as dangerous as anyone who is storing up 20 assault rifles and Glocks with high-capacity magazines: there is something wrong with people who are simply collecting weapons designed to shoot other people, far more than he could POSSIBLY use, more even than if he wanted to arm the neighborhood!! Who can use 10 or 20 guns? Who has reason to? Having that many weapons is not about self-defense -- it's about fantasies of killing lots of people. It's a marker for mental illness, I fear.

I'd respect anyone with a pistol and a shotgun in the house. Someone with 10 assault rifles or even just 4 of them and several semi-automatics with high-capacity magazines? That's a crazy person who may well go off the rails and into a shooting spree where he runs out to kill children and strangers at a school or mall. It's a very bad sign!

You see that I am making a very different point than you did. You justify self-defense via weapons that anyone, old or young, male or female, can use. I agree with that. But to have far more weapons than anyone could possibly use? That's not a good sign. If a person is doing that, it's a marker to watch out, he may well be dangerous to innocent people if or when he suddenly goes off.

 

[Politico]

Their age is irrelevant.

 

[uscitizen]

Elders are very succeseptable to Talk radio and such.

 

[MikeK]

You see that I am making a very different point than you did. You justify self-defense via weapons that anyone, old or young, male or female, can use. I agree with that. But to have far more weapons than anyone could possibly use? That's not a good sign. If a person is doing that, it's a marker to watch out, he may well be dangerous to innocent people if or when he suddenly goes off.

I have no doubt there are individuals who precisely fit the pathological profile you've described. But considering how many millions of Americans are avid gun enthusiasts and collectors, what percentage of these otherwise ordinary people do you believe occupy the pathological category you've outlined? I would think the number is very small.

Have you ever tuned into what I will call the QVC of fantasy slasher-ware, where every conceivable kind of the most menacingly lethal knives and swords imaginable are hawked? Here is a YouTube sample: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp5Nt2MUHms]Knife Show in Three Minutes - YouTube[/ame]

What is most surprising about the Knife Show is it's on several nights a week and has been for several years. And they push (typically wholesale) everything from samurai swords to Bowie knives, pocket-knives that flip open with a thumb-flick, fold-away straight razors, sword canes, and "specialty" items which obviously are designed with sidewalk surgery in mind. The long-term existence of this hour-long pitch assuredly means there is a substantial market for the kind of cutlery Jack The Ripper would endorse. But how often do we read or hear about knife attacks?

What I'm suggesting is the vast majority of those who are into personal weaponry, including those who harbor homicidal fantasies, are relatively harmless onanist-types, whereas the comparative few who are potentially dangerous will manage to arm themselves if and when the compulsion to act overcomes them. I don't believe possession of exotic weaponry stimulates homicidal impulses anymore than pornography inspires forcible rape. If anything it might serve as a form of release.

 

[Snookie]

I blame the contempory insanity on the population exploson.

Maltus ill be proven right.

 

[Circe]

I blame the contempory insanity on the population exploson.

Maltus ill be proven right.

Malthus rides again?

I like it. There are so many themes in our culture that go along with an inchoate mass desire to get this huge overpopulation DOWN. Homosexual "marriage," low birth rates, abortion legal --- and an upsurge of mass killings. Especially of children. Yep, that fits.

 

[Snookie]

I blame the contempory insanity on the population exploson.

Maltus ill be proven right.

Malthus rides again?

I like it. There are so many themes in our culture that go along with an inchoate mass desire to get this huge overpopulation DOWN. Homosexual "marriage," low birth rates, abortion legal --- and an upsurge of mass killings. Especially of children. Yep, that fits.

Mother Nature. Thin of a viru colony that eats it's ost, then dies of starvbation. It's the same thing that humans art doing with mother earth.