FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
David Griffith

David Griffith

David Griffith has been editor of POLICE Magazine since December 2001. He brings more than 25 years of experience on magazines and newspapers to POLICE. A Maggie award-winning journalist, his byline has appeared on hundreds of articles in POLICE and other national magazines.

Doug  Wyllie

Doug Wyllie

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).

Melanie Basich

Melanie Basich

Managing Editor Melanie Basich joined POLICE Magazine in 2000 (when her last name was still Hamilton). An award-winning journalist, she has covered such topics as agency budgets, officer suicide, emerging law enforcement technologies, and active shooter tactics. She writes and manages the product section of POLICE.
Editor's Notes

Mass Killers: Gun Control is Not the Answer

The fault is in the killers not in their chosen weapons.

June 03, 2014  |  by - Also by this author

Late last month, an alienated and enraged University of California at Santa Barbara undergraduate student went on a long-planned killing spree.

At some time before 9:27 p.m. on Friday May 23, the 22-year-old student stabbed, slashed, and hacked three young men to death inside his off-campus Isla Vista residence. Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown said the inside of the dwelling was a "horrific crime scene."

After leaving his home, the killer switched from blades to a semi-auto pistol. He drove to a sorority house and tried to enter but was blocked. He then shot and killed two young women outside the house. Then he drove to a nearby deli and killed a young man.

Law enforcement officers responded to the rampage. The shooter opened fire on them. They shot back. After the exchange, the killer died in the usual method of mass murderers; he shot himself in the head.

This rampage claimed the lives of the following UCSB students:

* George Chen, 19

* Katherine Breann Cooper, 22

* Christopher Ross-Michaels Martinez, 20

* Cheng Yuan "James" Hong, 20

* Weihan Wang, 20

* Veronika Elizabeth Weiss, 19

Eight more were wounded by the killer's bullets and four were injured when he struck them with his car.

The next day Richard Martinez, father of one of the victims, lashed out at the NRA, blaming the pro-Second Amendment organization and politicians that support gun rights for the death of his son. I sympathize with Martinez and I am sorry for his loss, but he seems to have selective amnesia over the fact that half of the students killed during the Isla Vista incident were hacked to death with an as-yet-unidentified blade and many of the injured were rammed by the killer's BMW sedan.

After a mass murder incident like Isla Vista, the media loves to run a lot of stories that imply such tragedies would surely be a thing of the past if we could just outlaw all the guns. Those same reporters rarely consider how much damage this killer could have done in a crowded classroom with a blade. But they might want to ask their Chinese counterparts about such massacres.

The media also likes to point their fingers at mental health professionals, parents, teachers, etc. But it is extremely rare that any pundit or columnist acknowledges the media's role in perpetuating these slaughters.

Just days after the Isla Vista murders, newspapers and the Websites of TV news organizations printed the killer's 141-page rambling manifesto. And in doing so, they let him espouse his twisted views and spread his whiny message of hatred and brutal fantasies of mass murder, which may influence future killers.

Worse, all the TV news networks—except the much-maligned Fox—tripped over themselves rushing the killer's YouTube videos to air.

I believe such publicity may serve as a reward for cowardly mass murderers. And maybe it's time for the news media to stop granting them this little slice of fame.

In an editorial published in Police Magazine in August 2012, just weeks after the Aurora Theater Massacre, I wrote:

The Columbine killers, the Virginia Tech murderer, and the Aurora shooting suspect have all become household names. And I believe that the desire for stardom is at least part of the motivation for these massacres. I think these butchers want to be famous. That's why they seek such high body counts. They want to top the other guys, hold the record, be the champion killer of all time.

I think we need to take away that motivation. I've argued this point with my fellow journalists, to no avail. But I think it's time that we stop publicizing the names of these mass active shooter suspects.

There is precedent for such journalistic restraint. As a general rule, the media does not publish the names of rape victims or suicide subjects. There are of course exceptions to this rule. But generally, we mind our manners on these two points.

So I think it's time to add a third category of names to that proscription: mass active shooters who seek huge body counts. Of course, the name of the shooter will eventually leak, but there's a big difference between having your name and face splashed on every network, news site, newspaper, and magazine cover the day of the attack and having the name leak out days later.

And I may not be alone in these sentiments. Sunday the New York Times ran an editorial discussing the issue.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that anything other than early police intervention, permanent confinement, or a bullet to the brain could have stopped the Isla Vista killer.

It's possible he killed his fellow students and even his roommates to attract attention, but I think this young man just killed because he had a twisted need to kill.

His manifesto reads like a misogynistic "Mein Kampf." In it he reportedly attacks not just women (as widely reported), but racial minorities, interracial couples, and others. He even details a Hitlerian fantasy where he would have all women rounded up into concentration camps and slowly starve them to death. A final solution for the human race.

Many people say that more mental health resources and more liberal commitment laws would have prevented this killer from undertaking his bloody rampage. But I doubt it. For lack of a better word, this guy was "evil." What made him that way is a question for psychologists and neurologists. But evil is a hard thing to treat and an even harder thing to contain.

Evil is also persistent and innovative. On the day he was born you could have taken away every gun from every law-abiding American and outlawed the manufacture and sale of guns and this killer would have still found a way to leave his mark.

And I think he probably would have done so regardless of the notoriety achieved by previous mass killers. I think this young man was just consumed by hate and had a compulsion to kill.

Comments (49)

Displaying 1 - 49 of 49

Walt Kuleck @ 6/3/2014 3:28 PM

Weren't three of the six murdered stabbed, not shot?

Rick @ 6/3/2014 3:38 PM

Well said. The mass murderers all seem to feel no one is paying attention then they go and get their 15 minutes of fame.

westcoastleo @ 6/3/2014 3:39 PM

Knife control and Car control. He stabbed first then drove. Gun control is not the answer. Let's just say that one of the people around the men and women who got shot, had a CCW. Lets just say that the person took action and shot this stupid coward as he was shooting. That would have been nice to see. Gun control is not the answer...

LASD supervisor...
34.6 years...

Deputy068 @ 6/3/2014 4:11 PM

Another case of the public expecting the police to be everywhere at once, on the spot BEFORE this little dirt bag coward stabbed his first victim, before he rammed someone with his BMW, before he shot his first target. When we are there, and we pull the trigger, the first thing want to know is, "Why did you have to shoot to kill, couldn't you just wound him? You could have shot the gun out of his hand - I've seen it done like that on TV!"

Ima Leprechaun @ 6/3/2014 4:33 PM

There will always be horrific crimes. Let the gun nuts have their guns and make the price of bullets $20 a piece. The is no right to ammunition in the US Constitution, so price ammo so high that the cost of the bullets will render the use of a gun too costly to use as anything other than a paper weight. Guns are the cause of most of the serious crime in this country so making ammunition expensive and hard to get by high cost is one way to slow down firearm misuse. Honest citizens would make the choice to buy ammo at the increased cost and at $20 per bullet and it is still a cheap price for hunters who claim to use the least amount of ammunition as possible anyway. There is no right to ammunition anywhere in the US Constitution. When the 2nd amendment was written gun owners made their own lead ball ammunition propelled by black powder which allowed a weapon to be fired one shot at a time with a ten minute reload time between shots. That's completely fair.

Carlos @ 6/3/2014 6:23 PM

The only ones who are for Gun Control are those who are pro-massacre!!

John @ 6/3/2014 8:18 PM

Isn't the ultimate goal of "gun control" to disarm law abiding citizens and make them subjects? A recent FBI report indicated that in 2012 more people were killed by hammers (blunt force trauma) than by rifles. I have always believed that an armed society is a polite society........after a 40 year career in law enforcement!

Concerned Citizen @ 6/3/2014 9:15 PM

Ammo Control = Gun Control Duh?... What about a Media that Glorifies Syrian "Rebels" with Guns? So it's ok for someone in that Third World Cesspool to own a gun and have Military Spec. Weapons. But the MSM gets down on people who shoot Rabbits with a Ruger 10/22? Shall Not Be Infringed! What Part of Neo Fascism do people don't understand? Liberal Cops Ret. and Active who "Buy the Media's Lies! I invite you to TURN IN YOUR GUNS FIRST! Then we'll see who a "Self Proclaimed Gun Nut is"! Post "Gun Free Zone" at your home etc. Also have "loving Obama supporter" on your property! Otherwise... you have proven to others of your own hypocrisy and character flaws! The Founding Fathers are/were Gun Nuts! Choose them or Mao! You can't serve two masters! Make a choice! The maO in the WH..

Obama is the biggest GUN NUT of them all he stockpiles ammo and weapons for people to protect HIM! Or gives arms to the Muslim Brotherhood! But some mom & pop who plink? Ooh.. they're evil right wingers!

Greg @ 6/4/2014 3:27 AM

And the amazingly dramatic and emotional "father", Martinez, is a pimp for gun control. He has a political history of hating and badmouthing the NRA, he hates guns and that the peasants own them. He is waving the bloody flag of his son's death to further his political despicable.

Brad B @ 6/4/2014 5:41 AM

Our world is full of "deadly weapons". Currently, handguns are the "bad" ones. Once they are banned the next "bad" deadly weapon will be certain rifles. Then all rifles. Then shotguns. Because people who want to do the killing will use whatever they have close. Before firearms it was edged weapons. And so, governments had and still have blade length laws and blade shape laws. People have been killing each other forever. The more population the more killing will happen. A wise man 2000 years ago told us this is in our nature and will continue until He returns.

Vic @ 6/4/2014 5:44 AM

I strongly disagree with your premise that gun control will do nothing to stop mass shootings. There is abundant evidence to the contrary. Background checks on private sales, for examples, would have stopped the Columbine shooters from obtaining their firearms. Background checks the NRA has fought to weaken, and prevent from being implemented while attacking the budget for law enforcement officers.
You repeat the NRA talking point that the Santa Barbara mass killing proves magazine limits do not work. This is false on several levels. First, can you imagine the carnage in Santa Barbara if the shooter had 30 round magazines, or even 15? Eyewitnesses said he left each shooting scene after he emptied his 10 round magazine and had to reload. 15 rounds would have been 50% more shots fired at each crowded location. If anything, magazine limits clearly saved lives. Studies of mass shootings have shown that when the shooter has a high capacity magazine, more people are shot.

Vic @ 6/4/2014 5:45 AM

During the federal assault weapon ban there was evidence that criminals were less likely to have high capacity magazines. It reduced the access to firepower. It made a difference and made law enforcement a little bit safer.
You seem to have selective amnesia about how difficult the NRA has made it to get a court order to take away someone’s firearms. I really do not get how more folks in law enforcement do not realize that the NRA does not help them. They have shifted to extremist positions that represent the firearms makers and gun lobby, rather than their members. Their positions hurt police. Example include their efforts to restrict sharing gun trafficking data between departments, calling the BATF, fellow law enforcement officers, “Jack Booted Thugs”, lobbying to reduce their budget and blocking the appointment of a BATF director for years. They attack any law enforcement group that does not agree with them in their lobbying efforts.

Vic @ 6/4/2014 5:45 AM

The knife analogy is ridiculous. I remember that knife attack in China, and you know what stood out to me? NO ONE DIED. You can not seriously compare the rate of mass murders and mass shooting in the United States to any other industrial nation. 100,000 people a year are shot in this country, 32,000 die. That rate is hugely higher than any other industrial nation. The only thing different is our loose gun laws.
Your claim that if there were no guns, mass killing would still exist. What do you base that comment on? In every country that had a mass shooting and then enacted strict gun control laws, mass killing have dropped to nearly zero. There are exceptions, but this fatalistic attitude is quite frankly strange for law enforcement to take. You are basically claiming that if a law does not stop every mass killing, ever, it is not worth having. That is bad public policy, and not what most law enforcement support.

Vic @ 6/4/2014 5:45 AM

I do agree with you on the point that the focus should be on the victims instead of the shooter, but illustrating how disturbed some of these perps are and their easy access to firearms is an important part of the story. You are not going to stop every mass killing, but you can take steps to reduce them, and limit the deadly impact.

Finally, I am appalled by some of the other comments on this article. I sincerely hope that these are posers, and not actual members of law enforcement who are insinuating it was a fake event, and that Mr. Martinez did not actually lose his son. Shame on you.

Cool hand Luke @ 6/4/2014 5:54 AM

Vic, why don't you really tell us how you really feel! And since you dislike America so much why not move.

NJ Motorcop @ 6/4/2014 8:16 AM

Another BMW used in an attack! Stop the carnage! We must outlaw these assault vehicles before more people are slaughtered on our streets!

Ordinary Joe @ 6/4/2014 12:03 PM

@Vic. Unfortunately, it is your ilk that is getting more and more people killed.

Let's disarm the populace to save them from themselves. They have no need of firearms. Why, studies show 4 out 5 people are afraid of guns so they must be bad. The sooner we become sheep the better. We do not want to antagonize the wolves. Or better yet, lets give the wolves more targets so I have a better chance of survival.

I think that about sums up your argument. And yes, I am a member of law enforcement and I am not ashamed.

grog18b @ 6/4/2014 1:29 PM

Vic, you are so far off the mark, I won't even bother addressing your nonsense... You write about all this "evidence" that the AWB worked, and other crap, well bro, where is that "evidence"? AFAIK the Gov't already admitted that the AWB did nothing to curb crime in any way. Get a clue Bro, really...

Kevin @ 6/4/2014 1:30 PM

Vic, you are wrong about the NRA and background checks. The NRA is fighting to protect our second amendment rights. The Columbine shooters acquired their weapons illegally. How could a background check have changed that? Where is the "abundant evidence" you speak of that gun control will stop mass shootings? Please provide a reference. you stated that "During the federal assault weapon ban there was evidence that criminals were less likely to have high capacity magazines. It reduced the access to firepower. It made a difference and made law enforcement a little bit safer." Where is this evidence? The key word in your previous statement is CRIMINALS. In your experience how often have criminals paid any attention to gun laws? One more question, when does law enforcement arrive at the scene, before or after the victim is attacked?

Jack Betz @ 6/4/2014 2:22 PM

Gun control is a sick joke. We outlaw firearms and honest men don't arm themselves. Then an officer rolls up on a call and sees the shattered looks and hears the weeping and has to hear the same question again. "You are supposed to protect us, why did you let this happen?" THe first thing I learned from the finest officer I ever knew is the police CAN NOT protrct the public. They have to do alot of it themselves. Those of you who protest AR's in non police hands might take a look at New ORleans after the hurricane, or for that matter any city from Miami to LA that haas had a serious riot. ANd let us not forget how it affects lawmen. As in the last time I checked most married cops have a firearm loaded and ready at home for their wivies while they are at work. And in the Military Police the service weapon is checked out at the start of shift and checked back in at the end. How many of you anti gun types would like to not have a weapon handy at home.

Jack Betz @ 6/4/2014 2:24 PM

A friend of mine named Chris Bird has written several books on the subject non police concealed weapons. The title of one says it real plain. "Thank GOd I had a gun."

Jack Betz @ 6/4/2014 2:25 PM

As for you Vic, I'd say what I think about your thoughts, but for my sins I was raised a gentleman.

HOUSE @ 6/5/2014 4:19 AM

@Vic, your are seriously off the mark and misinformed sir. You say backround checks would've "stopped" Columbine? are you aware a straw purchaser acquired most of the weapons they used during the slaughter? or the fact that both f those animals were under 18? NO, a backround check wouldn't have stopped it. where in the name of Christ are you getting your info? Nobody died in the Chinese attacks? you fing retard 17 people were killed on a train/station in Xinjin ! dude you don't know what your talking about. don't post this liberal bs you heard on theyoungturks and take it as the gospel, your making yourself look stupid. there is no evidence either scientifically or from crime scene studies that support the magazine things you mention, a "ban" is virtually ineffective at every level. how are you gonna ban things when theres a "pre ban" allowed period? how will you determine which magazine is and isn't banned? why wouldn't these madmen just steal them? use logic and common sense.

VIc @ 6/5/2014 5:26 AM

To those who say the Columbine shooting would not have been stopped by background checks, the girl who bought the guns at a gun show from a private seller testified that she would not have purchased the guns if she had to go througha background check. That it is not in dispute. As many as 40% of all guns sold in the US are through private sellers and do not undergo a background check.

VIc @ 6/5/2014 5:29 AM

By the way house, he was referring to the knife attack at a Japanese schoo, so I guess you are clearly the effing retard who can not read.

Vic @ 6/5/2014 5:35 AM

Kevin, I am not wrong about the NRA. They have become anti- law enforcement over the past 20 years. They call federal agents jack booted thugs, they lobby for laws that allow you to shoot cops under stand your ground, they lobbied against COPS grants, they call school based police officer "invisible cops", they fought against police department sharing information about crime guns, they have fought banning cop killer bullets, and have slandered national police organization like the IACP on the cover of their magazines.

They push out myths that citizens need to be armed to fight a tyrannical government. Who do you think the first line of this so-called "tyranny" is? The local cop. Look at the Bundy Ranch and how many open carry militia idiots were pointing sniper rifles at federal agents. This myth that the government is coming to disarm you is meant to do one thing, and one thing only: sell more guns. They take tens of millions of dollars from gun makers each year, and it pays off.

vic @ 6/5/2014 5:41 AM

Ordinary Joe, you jumped to the ridiculous assertion that gun control means disarming the population. I never said that once.

100,000 Americans are shot each and every year. 32,000 dies. Making it easier for people to have guns who are danger to themselves and others is not the answer. We have the loosest gun laws out of any indsutrialized nation in the world, and more guns in the hands of civilians that anywhere in the world. If you were right, we would have the least gun violence. That has proven very clearly not to be the case, and we we lead the industrialized workd in gun deaths.

Wake up.

VIc @ 6/5/2014 5:46 AM

Cool Hand Luke, is that your reaction to everyone's opinion? If you don't agree you should leave America? Guess you forgot the First Amendment, and just focus your weird rage on the Second.

Vic @ 6/5/2014 5:49 AM

Grog, you asked for evidence that during the assault weapon ban criminals were found to have less firepower? Here you go.

joshua @ 6/5/2014 12:33 PM

Vic, you're wrong in nearly every post. The 40% lie has been debunked soundly. Background checks would have stopped maybe the one person the columbine kids asked, and they would have just found another. There are certainly NOT "100,000" people SHOT each year. That implies an attack. The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are suicides, period. If you remove gun homicides in new Orleans, Chicago, philly, and DC from the numbers the US is the 4th safest nation in the world. After suicides, almost 90% of gun deaths are gang on gang violence in urban areas. Mass shootings make up less than 0.1% of annual deaths from firearms. You are more than 6 TIMES more likely to die from malpractice than a firearm death.

VIc @ 6/6/2014 6:45 AM you're arguing that if you don't count all the people who have been shot, America would really look much safer on paper? That is the silliest argument I have ever heard. There is no dispute, by anyone, that 100,000 Americans are shot every year. That does not imply attack or anything else. It means 100,000 Americans had a bullet enter their bodies.

I have no idea where you got those ridiculous numbers, but I would hate to be your accountant during tax season.

Vic @ 6/6/2014 8:06 AM

And by the way, the 40% of all guns are pruchased through private sales has not been debunked soundly, by anyone. It is an old number, but no one has debunked it because the NRA has blocked any research on this. We don't know what the exact number is because of the NRA. That is a fact.

The NRA is not a friend to law enforcement.

Vic @ 6/6/2014 8:23 AM

One last thing, there was another mass shooting at a college yesterday, this time in Seattle. How was the shooting rampage stopped? Students tackled the shooter when he stopped to reload.

Just like in SAnta Barbara, the shooter moved on each time he had to reload.

There goes your argument.

Dale @ 6/6/2014 9:55 AM

I would like to Thank Vic for being part of the debate and would urge he and everyone else to refrain from personal attacks. Vic, I think that this is the first time I recall an anti- self defense proponent argue that gun control is working. The usual response from your side is that the reason it didn't work is that there wasn't enough of it. California, "A" rated by the Brady campaign has the Bloomburg/ DemandingMom's/VPC wish list of laws on the books and it didn't stop a crazy person from doing something crazy. I think it is interesting that your argument that it sould have been worse is interesting (though of coarse there is no way to prove it). I would argue the other side of the equation which is had any of the victims had the means of self defense it would have been better. What are your thoughts about knife control. His first three victims were stabbed/hacked to death. There is penty of evidence that knive wounds are fatal more often than gunshot wounds.

grog18b @ 6/7/2014 4:42 PM

Vic, I read the entire article you responded with. One study, from one state out of 50, where the "high cap mags" seized by police after crimes, were slightly reduced during the ban... Your using this stat as "evidence" that the ban was somehow working, is a very flimsy argument, and not "evidence." I am a 20+ year veteran of a large police department, and the guns seized by our department during any year depend on many factors, most of which any law or ban would have no effect on.


grog18b @ 6/7/2014 4:45 PM

Vic, the gun and magazines and ammo are not the problem. The human that is behind the trigger is the problem. A gun can be, and is, used many times every single day, by honorable people, for honorable reasons. We do not honor the gun for those actions, but we honor the people. Audie Murphy was awarded the CMOH, not the weapons he used to earn that medal. Why do you, and people like you, continue to blame everything except the REAL cause of the murders you hate so much? Why is it so important to take weapons out of the hands of the citizens of America? I recommend you read "Resistance to tyranny"...


grog18b @ 6/7/2014 4:48 PM

My right to keep arms has nothing to do with hunting, or any other "sporting purpose" as your article quotes as to the "test" as to which arms and magazines I can keep. I do not keep my firearms for the purpose of "killing deer" as again, your article quotes. I keep them to fight for my freedom, should that become needed. I keep them to water a cirtain tree, if that becomes needed. The tree Benjamin Franklin spoke of... Heard of him?

I find it amusing that there are people these days that think the only reason people own guns is to hunt. The only legitimate reason anyone has to have magazines of a high capacity is to blow Bambi into shreads. Vic, I used to hunt, but now I own my firearms for only one reason. To fight with. I am a veteran, and a retired cop. I see hundreds of places around the world that forbid their subjects the right to own firearms, and my friend, those places are crapholes with NO freedom. Take away the guns, and your freedom is next.

grog18b @ 6/7/2014 4:57 PM

As you are so interested in stats, and facts, read the above book I quoted to you. It takes the time to explain how Governments around the world and throughout history have first disarmed their populations, then murdered them. If not the Government that actually took the right to bear arms away, then the Government that came in next. WW2 is a prime example of how Governments took away the citizen's right, mostly in the name of "security" and later those very same people were murdered. 6 Million Jews. 20+ million Soviet citizens, millions of others from Ukraine, Poland, and other nations... The thing all of those nations had in common was strict gun control laws... BEFORE the Germans invaded. This made it so easy for the Nazis to round up and exterminate millions, with very few Nazis actually doing the killing. I am a student of history, Gun control = mass murder. More people are killed in peace by Governments, than in war. Do yourself a favor, and read the book.

HOUSE @ 6/10/2014 4:30 AM

@VIC, actually YOU mentioned :the knife attack in China" you effing retard ! and people have been getting killed in them. but im glad to see I broke you after one post, I noticed you resorted to petty insults once your argument was over. no way your In Law Enforcement. if you are, you must have rode a desk your whole life or something. guys like you came up with the Chicago/San Diego handgun "ban". you see how that's working out right, you liberal douche!

lucky @ 6/10/2014 11:30 AM

@VIC, thanks for being a voice of sanity! I'm AD military and can't understand such resistance to GC. PPL have lost the ability to reason and virtually every day we have more attacks. WalMart yesterday, Oregon HS today... yet the NRA continues to have its way with the public. "we need knife control"... stupid argument. The lethality of a gunshot versus a stabbing is exponentially different. Ask any ER doctor. "We need BMW control"... even more stupid. Cars kill lots of ppl in America. Thats why we TRY to control them. Laws to own, operate, insure, train, restrict etc. Yet nobody goes around saying, "Well you're nvr going to get all accidents to stop, so why even post a speed limit?" Yet that is the same faulty logic the NRA uses. "You will never stop all gun violence with laws"... Does not mean we dont implement and enforce them! Oh... and @Carlos: "those for GC are pro-massacre"... what an idiodic comment. @Cool Hand: USA is my country too, I shldn't have to leave to be safe

HOUSE @ 6/10/2014 12:52 PM

@Lucky, well fella looks like Vic needed some help, cuz he ran outta gas. like he was blind to notice, we have the most gun laws in the world for the country with the most privately owned guns and STILL all this crap is happening. Murder is illegal too, and guess what? its still going on. Maybe if we enforce the laws we have on the books (which for the most part we don't) you might have some water in your argument. until then, what sense does it make to create more laws that madmen don't care about? its makes about as much sense as making more drug laws right?

Julie @ 6/12/2014 4:36 AM

A firearm is an inanimate object, just like a knife, a car, or a baseball bat. Nobody hollers about banning cars and bats, although they are often used to kill, yet you can still drive to a ball game. It's not the object used, be it a gun, knife, rock or bare hands. It's the person who makes the decision to end anothers life. It's not the amount of weapons available, but the lack of proper mental health facilities, the deterioration of the family units, the increase in gang activity, and the lack of learning the true value of human life. Limiting or banning various firearms will not solve the problem. These people will simply find another way to carry out their evil ways. Why don't we start discussing how to prevent people from their need to end innocent lives, rather than banning the tools they choose to use. In a vast majority of these mass killings, the weapons were either stolen or purchased on the black market. We need to stop the problem where it starts...the person!

Big Dog @ 6/12/2014 4:50 AM

Yeah, banning things will keep criminals from getting them. We banned Heroin and now no one can get it or use it. Felons are not allowed to have guns but they get them. Illegals are banned from voting but they do. Prohibition banned alcohol and no one drank.

Yep, banning things is a great idea. Especially if you ban them from those who are not likely to commit crimes.

By Vic's logic we should ban everyone from driving because of drunk drivers. BTW, more people are killed in auto accidents than from gunshots so we can end the carnage by banning driving.


Sam Durham @ 6/12/2014 4:55 AM

More children are molested by teachers than are killed at school by guns. Drugs are outlawed, how's that working, America.

Sam Durham @ 6/12/2014 4:58 AM

More children are molested by teachers than are killed at school by guns. Drugs are illegal, how's that working out America?

Rob @ 6/12/2014 5:35 AM

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764)

True two centuries ago, true today, true always.

Dustin @ 6/12/2014 8:43 AM

I saw a few people on here comment that we should let people have their guns, just price ammunition out of reach.... really? actually it is against the law to do that, as part of the Dick act, some of you might be chuckling. nott o mention that this was a rich baby of a mass murderer, in a state where ammunition is already subject to restrictions like face to face sales, background checks in some cases, and extra costs. the whole of the Second Amendment is to protect our ability to keep and bear arms, which includes ammunition. wake up! some people are just evil, or snap, ive been a "victim" of someone who had snapped, I still do not blame inanimate objects, nor do I blame the person for breaking when they did. you must know the entire story for that. this kid was simply used to getting his way, and women wouldn't bow down to him. maybe he should have taken a road trip, im sure he would have got more than he could handle.

The Constitutionalist @ 6/12/2014 8:07 PM

Oh but ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment. The right to own and bear ARMS includes ammunition.

Dan @ 7/2/2014 4:58 PM

This type of situation will eventually be solved with science. Once we stop saying people are "evil" and start to understand that homicidal thoughts are a product of normal brain functioning, we can start to move forward. These gunmen aren't possessed by the devil, they have serious mental health issues. The day will come when we learn how to fully manipulate genes and will be able to regulate emotions and brain development. Emotions are a product of evolution not a benevolent god. Anger and fear are useful tools for survival. The question we will need to answer as a society will not be if we CAN alter genes, it will be if we SHOULD.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

Politics Trumping Tactics: [Don't] Sit Down… You're Rocking the Boat
Elected officials have one underlying goal that informs and influences all their other...
Foot and Hoof Patrol: Meaningfully Connecting Cops and Citizens
Foot patrol is the essence of community policing—officers on foot create opportunities for...

Police Magazine