Omaha Shooter: AK47 Unlocked Closet, Handguns Hidden, Owner on Vacation

[Sharps-shooter]

Being young and inexperienced and jacked up on male hormones is definitely a contributing factor in the storm of circumstances that lead up to this tragedy.

Having a gun in an unsecured location while the owner was out of town and a known-to-be-unstable person was staying at his house, was also a factor.

Rampant reliance on drugs as an emotional coping mechanism, be they prozac, alcohol, or whatever, is a widespread social problem which may have played into this storm of circumstances as well.

Lack of security at the mall might have come into play as well.

None of these things alone could really be expected to produce this result. Even the combination of all of them might not produce this kind of outcome more than once in a thousand times. Addressing any one of them may or may not have been enough to produce a different outcome. It's a hideous fact that life can be so random sometimes. You go to the mall to do some christmas shopping, next thing you know a stranger is shooting a rifle at you.

I think what might see a reduction in this type of incident, is for our culture to be more respectful of human life, and more respectful of the ability to cause death that each one of us possesses. People do this kind of thing to be shocking and assert that they did have some power. If they felt more sure of the possibility of doing it in the first place, then they probably wouldn't feel that it was something they needed to prove.

And the people in the mall, if they were more aware of their own life and power, might have had a better response to the attack. maybe; i don't know the details of how the shooting went on, or how much time elapsed between the first shooting and him taking his own life.

 

[Scratchy]

I am not for locking up guns so you cannot use them readily. He wanted to kill and I think he would of found some other way to kill.

 

[mike101]

When I go on vacation, or even just out to the mall, I lock up the guns that aren't already locked up. I do it even when no one is in the house. It just seems like a common sense thing.

Of course, the kid could have bought his own guns, but at least he wouldn't be using mine.

 

[feedthehogs]

I think it pretty plain that male hormones occlude the mind's ability to think rationally

A perfect example of placing the blame for bad behaviour on something percieved to be out of our control so we're not responsible for the acts we commit.

My aunt commited suicide when I was a kid. Ten years later my mom tried to kill herself, but survived. Therapy brought out the girls were badly abused sexualy by their dad.

So is the reason my aunt killed herself and my mom tried was because they were just nuts from birth, or were the circumstances of their dysfunctional family responsible for their behaviour?

Was it because Hawkins was just born nuts or was his actions caused by him feeling abandoned and alone? Something that was entirely preventable.

 

[Onmilo]

None of this was the stepfathers fault, period.
He left the rifle available to people whom he trusted to use only in the event of personal protection.
He wasn't in the house, the mother was.
Still doesn't make her accountable either.
She may have forgotten the rifle was there and available.
No one suspected the kid was going to snap.

I don't hear anybody blaming parents when their kids steal the keys to the family car, get drunk, and smash the car into a tree killing themselves and their passengers.

Get off the blame game.

 

[GigaBuist]

Why is that years ago when it was more common to see kids carrying a gun to school to go hunting afterwards, school shootings were non existant?

There was a pretty big one back in the '60's.

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

 

[AZ Husker]

You're all forgetting...the kid had a history of mental problems!

 

[vtoddball]

If no one is in the house(for more than a day) I lock up my guns. If someone is home, there will always be a 12 gauge pump in the bedroom for me or my wife. If someone steals it while we're home, I think the most we can be guilty of is being poor readers of what that person is capable of.

If it were stolen, I wouldn't change my policy because the gun is there for a very good reason. What I would change is how closely I pay attention if someone else is in the house and consider locking it up during shorter excursions if someone else is on the house.

 

[akanotken]

You can't have it all ways ...

He couldn't leave a firearm ready for home protection and not have it accessable for this kid.

He took intermediate steps, hid the guns that were likely the most concealable and maybe the easiest to pawn and likely the most likely to be used improperly.

I commend him, not knowing any more about the situation, I think he did right. You can't allow hindsight to dictate future actions. If you do, eventually you try to remove everything remotely harmful from life ... sounds appealing on some level, but really not the kind of life anyone of us would leave.

Nope, for me the Pop and Mom are completely in the clear and the kid carries 100% for the possession of the rifle.

As for disfunctional families .. well I don't know if that belongs in this thread .. but yea, current living conditions has to contribute some ... vid games, movies, other killings, split families ... none of it played 0% part of this, but (IMO) none of it carried 50% either.

 

[sig226]

Since you point out that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone, think on this: What if the little SOB started at home, as numerous other killers have done in the past? Charles Whitman is the one that leaps to mind, but other killers have attacked family members before they killed straners. Suppose he had taken the chef's knife from the kitchen drawer and started chasing stepmom or the kids with it, the AK would have been essential.

As has been pointed out on this thread, it is very easy to second guess.

 

[WeedWhacker]

We're supposed to pride ourselves in being reasonable as gun owners.

You can talk to me about being "reasonable" just as soon as you and yours start respecting the Constitution, beginning with amendment number two: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think that in 99% of these cases, the problem is one of values. In days gone by (which I'm going to assume is 1960 and earlier), people who were depressed usually just killed themselves. In modern times, people feel that society owes them something. So instead of just crashing their car into a telephone pole, they crash it into oncoming traffic. Instead of just shooting themselves in the head, they take 2-32 other people with them.

I also think that people surrounding these troubled individuals fail to report or acknowledge the troubled person's problems; either through sheer self-centeredness (ie, step-mom doesn't care, let's ignore the fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Kleibold are being ruthlessly teased) or political correctness (Richard McBeef really was about the VT shooter expressing himself in writing). So in some cases, it's not just the values of the shooter, but those exhibited by his family. Mom and Dad aren't homicidal. They go to church every sunday. But if when they leave church, they go home together as June and her 4th husband Bob and all they do is yell about how they need more money to buy Ralph Lauren and a new Escalade, well, Junior gets mixed messages. That's ok though, it doesn't really bother him. He's mellow in fact. Spends most of his time watching MTV, listening to music, and talking the friends on MySpace.

The trouble is, no politician will touch this. The right-wing will use this as a platform for religion, the left-wing will use it for gun-control. They'll compromise and meet half-way on a random non-solution: no more gun-show loophole and free pancake breakfast church-outreach programs. Nobody will admit that kids are screwed up or that they could partly be to blame for the child's behavior. The right-winger will say, "well, he wrote some crazy things, but he went to church, said he found God and then stopped writing the crazy stuff a week before the shooting. He was a really nice person", the left-winger will say, "I wanted my child to feel free to express himself, but he was sad, so I had the doctor put him on 5 different anti-depressants. They seemed to work, because a week before the shooting, he felt better and stopped taking them."

I mean hell, at least the "gun lobby" offers a solution. Everyone else seems to just be like, "Guns aren't the solution. I don't know what we need to do. Oh these assault weapons! I was just reading in USAToday at the doctor's office. Junior needed his new medication, (whispers) he gets depressed and has trouble concentrating in class... oh wait, I have to go, A Chance at Love is on... man Tila Tequila is hot... what were we talking about... ugh... Son, what's Tila doing now? I gotta go... "

 

[Caimlas]

OK, forget the negligent entrustment issue. It's about reasonable steps, as a gun owner, to prevent theft.

Uh huh. Reasonable, is it?

Vehicles kill more people per year than guns. Vehicles are, more than likely, used in as many or nearly as many "crazed killings" as guns (the model a year or so back who did just that comes to mind).

Aside from the political aspects of firearms, what makes them special in this regard, compared to a vehicle? The lock on the door and a key being 'required' to start the ignition? Not hardly: locks are there to keep honest people honest, nothing more.

The gun grabbers want us to approach things in terms of 'reasonable'. I agree, up to a point. Sensible, reasonable behavior states: we don't leave our cars parked outdoors if they're unlocked. We don't leave guns and ammuniion where young, inexperienced, dangerous people may get to them. The same precautions should apply to both cars and guns; the only difference is that guns have a higher "political quotient". Any precautions we take to protect our property from theft

If the fault falls on anyone, it's the mom for leaving him alone in the house, knowing there were guns there. But...

Was this kid someone who might be considered "dangerous" by society's definition, looking at his past behavior? He was depressed (or on some sort of drugs for similar problems, at least), he'd run into some problems with the law (ie he'd been caught for doing much of what most kids his age do, and what I don't doubt most of you/us did when we were kids - for fighting at school, possession of alcohol and sale of marijuana). He really doesn't fit the "stereotype" for dangerous, not on the scale that he proved to be. His problems mirror those of tens of thousands of other people his age.

Having been on anti-depressants in the past, and having friends who have been or are on various anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, and moon stabilizers, I can honestly say that I think the drug was at fault. Those things really, really f*ck up a person's head, and unless they've got a pretty good idea of who they are to begin with, and what they're doing - some driving focus in their lives - I can easily see how it would make them despondent towards society. For me and two friends who were on various drugs for depression and bipolarity, we are in consensus that doing something "not right" while on those drugs is entirely plausible.

While the drugs might immediately impact the state of depression or manic behavior, there's definitely something that gets tripped that makes you feel like you're out on a limb. One friend tried a half dozen different anti-depressants over the course of several years (paying many thousands of dollars to do so, because he didn't have insurance), and could not find one which did not make him feel suicidal, crazy or, yes, homicidal. The same for my bipolar friend. They both stopped taking the damn drugs because they didn't like the feeling that there is someone else in their head; I can vouch for sharing that feeling. Fortunately, I only took the things for about two weeks, but it was long enough to know that what they were doing was Not Good, and that I really shouldn't be experimenting with my brain.

If a drug doesn't have a 100% - or close to it - predictable psychological impact, I'm of the opinion that it really should not be used. If it cures 5 out of 10 people, and makes 1 o those people bats*it insane, the tradeoff isn't there. Companies should not be allowed to endanger the populace with these drugs - and that's precisely what they're doing.

 

[CDignition]

The thing is, if the guy is suicidal, theres no law or rule, or even moral value that will keep him from killing himself. So if the guys willing to kill himself, why does anyone think he will not kill anyone else near him..

My point being..the owner of the guns has his stuff at his house..his crazy nephew breaks into his house and steals his stuff, planning to kill himself and others too. Why chastise the owner for not "Locking up his stuff",, his stuff IS locked up.. by the front door. HE has zero liability in this.. ALL of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the kid doing the killing... no one else.

See y'all are falling into the trap that someone should be responsible for this kids actions...thats liberal thinking at its worst.

 

[Mannlicher]

its not the gun's fault, and its not the gun owners fault here. ALL of the fault lies with the little miscreant that did the killing.

 

[Pete409]

What is "reasonable" storage?

I wouldn't be too eager to criticize someone else for not taking "reasonable" precautions in safeguarding their firearms. What may be considered "reasonable" by one person may be way too lax or way too restrictive to another person. Everyone's situation is different and we shouldn't try to impose our definition of "reasonable" on others.

Keep in mind that if we keep insisting that our gun owning bretheren adhere to "reasonable" safeguarding of their firearms, our lawmakers may just decide to make it a compulsory law. Then, I can guarantee you won't like what they come up with as "reasonable" storage requirements.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I wouldn't be too eager to criticize someone else for not taking "reasonable" precautions in safeguarding their firearms.

I happen to believe that it is reasonable to expect people not to break into my house and steal my stuff, or to simply keep their paws off my stuff should they, for whatever reason, have access into my house.

 

[AndyC]

its not the gun's fault, and its not the gun owners fault here. ALL of the fault lies with the little miscreant that did the killing.

Hear, hear!

 

[hqmhqm]

These shootings are isolated incidents, in a population of 300 million people. They get all the press, but that is because the media is group of whores who will sell any sleaze and salacious material in order to sell their advertising. If there is no killing in your town, they will cover a killing in another town. If no killing in another town, they will cover one in another state. If no juicy murders today in the US, you'll hear about the bus crash in India or something. Honestly, I haven't watched the news for ten years now on TV, and I try not to read the main stream newspapers either. It is simply unhealthy.


Let's get some perspective here, and not buy into the
lowbrow media slant on this.

 

[Caimlas]

Since you point out that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone, think on this: What if the little SOB started at home, as numerous other killers have done in the past?

No doubt! If anything, that's at least suggestive of a a closely-knit family bond, in my opinion. He certainly had the opportunity to cause harm to those closest to him, and not only did he pass it up but he reassured those people that he loved them.

 

[OAKTOWN]

Everytime this subject comes up, for some reason I'm reminded of this.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Jesus H Christ. Private Pyle, why is your footlocker unlocked?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, I don't know, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Private Pyle, if there is one thing in this world that I hate, it is an unlocked footlocker! You know that don't you?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: If it wasn't for ********* like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, no, sir.

I consider it my responsibility to make my firearms as difficult to steal as I am reasonably able to make them. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about such things, but the world is far from perfect. Anyone who wants my firearms without my permission will have to work at it.

 

[Pete409]

I consider it my responsibility to make my firearms as difficult to steal as I am reasonably able to make them. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about such things, but the world is far from perfect. Anyone who wants my firearms without my permission will have to work at it.

That's fine if that's what makes you happy. BUT, that method may not be what some other gun owners want to do.

For example: Consider a married couple with no small children in the house. They may own numerous firearms and keep some of them strategically placed throughout the house for their own convenience and safety. They may have a gun in her car, and another gun in his car. They may have a bedside pistol for each of them and a shotgun in the bedroom closet. In addition, they may have a pistol in the TV room because that is where they are quite often and even occasionally nap there while the TV is on.

Now, let's further suppose that this couple decide to run down to the store for some groceries or perhaps go out to dinner for a couple of hours. Or, suppose they are leaving for work in the morning. Do you think they are going to go around to all 6 of these firearms and unload them and stash them away in the safe every time they leave the house for an hour or two? This means that when they return, they would then have to retrieve all 6 of them from the safe and load them up and redistribute them again........ only to have to go through the same old loading/unloading routine when they leave the house again a couple of hours later. This would mean they have 6 guns to load/unload and put away several times every day!

Now this may seem "reasonable" to you, but I can assure you that many people would not want to load/unload and put away and retrieve 6 guns several times every day.

 

[Caimlas]

BUT, that method may not be what some other gun owners want to do.

Then that's their choice. Not mine. Likewise, it's not their choice to decide how I store my firearms.

There are many, many households in this country which keep multiple loaded firearms throughout the house, and it's not just in rural areas or on farms and ranches. The homes of most of my relatives have them, mine have them, and I'm aware of many others. Most people who own multiple firearms and enjoy shooting or hunting will at least have one loaded firearm available at all times, in my experience.

 

[Master Blaster]

Yeah in the days of yore say the 1920's when people were more responsible these things didnt happen.....YADA YADA YADA....Humina Humina

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack.

On the morning of May 18, Kehoe first killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, and killing and injuring several others. During the rescue efforts, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol planted throughout the basement of the school's south wing.

Do a search on it and relize there have always been nutty people even in 1927.

 

[Antipasta]

The a$$ in question didn't go down to the street to get milk; he went to Thailand with his girlfriend. You're going to defend this guy's right to be negligent and clueless? You give the antis a poster child when you defend him.

If you need six guns laying around the house, you really need to move out of your current location!