I wonder what on earth happened to this kid to provoke him to do such a thing, at a young age. I know there are no excuses, but whatever the reason people generally don't randomly kill one another.

This wasn't gang violence or domestic abuse, just some teenager who killed his peers.

I would think he either had a misguided upbringing, was teased relentlessly or the worst case, mentally ill and incapable of feeling compassion, guilt or able to tell what he was doing was WRONG. Sad all around but I would hold back calling him a pathetic little puke. Those kids didn't deserve to die, but this kid didnt deserve the emotional ineptitude either.

Big - you can make all of the excuses for this kid that you want to make, but the fact still remains that the innocent kids he killed don't have the option of living long lives, going to college, getting married and raising a family, while this "pathetic puke" is still breathing. It doesn't matter what excuses he has. There are a lot of people who are teased relentlessly and/or have "misguided upbringings", but they don't go out and shoot other people for the fun of it.

And now we waste hundreds of thousands of tax dollars (maybe millions) having a trial that he admits killing them...........................Priceless.

hense the point I made about being mentally ill..... I dont condone killing people, but its much easier to attack someone when we ourselves cannot understand their actions because we are "normal" or equipped to understand that no matter what is going on our lives we don't shoot other people.....

I don't line up to assume something isn't wrong and demand to see a teenagers head chopped off or blood spilled. I actually think that is equally sickening.

ANY one of ANY age that kills should pay the price...PERIOD!

The kid's responses are consistent with a serial killer. Most people assume a serial killer has a lot of anger that they're acting out, but the contrary is usually the case. Serial killers are traditionally extremely apathetic. I suppose you could argue they do extremely dramatic things like this to try and feel SOME sort of emotion, any emotion. But when the kid says he's not depressed and not angry at anybody in particular, it does indicate that he could easily do this again. He had no axe to grind to begin with, which means he won't necessarily need one to do it again.

sounds like a true psychopath to me . maybe there should be more levels of capital crimes to determine punishment 1. crime of passion (possibility of parole) 2. crime of profit (possibility of parole) 3. crimes from insanity / lowered capacity (not like this but like unable to understand crime ) 4. criminally insane crimes - cannot rehabilitate these people, need to keep society safe no matter what there age - auto life in jail if guilty. why even have a lesser sentence ?

Jeez, at 17 means all he had to do was wait a couple of months and he'd NEVER see any of those kids, friends or foes, ever again, if he didn't want to.

I find it hard to sympathize, especially that close to being out of high school.

Do the crime do the time. Try him as an adult and jail him for life.

Hey AZT, time for a "good ole" anti-drug speech??

Must be, you've already made your anti-gun speech.

The government needs to decide how old a "child" is? The 17 year old is a child and can't drink beer but he is an adult when they decide he needs to go to jail.

Might be a good idea to raise the drinking age to about 35.

I disagree, as that would be too easy on him, I think. To let him simply drift into whatever happens after we die, if anything at all happens then. Instead, make him live out the rest of his life in a prison, where the other inmates will without a doubt harass/etc. him. The death penalty is too easy a punishment for something this like.

I say speedy trial (he already confessed), speedy execution. No need in supporting this filth for the next 60+ years.

...BUT you have to treat all 17 year olds as adults in every way then.

Dan - you missed the point. NO, just because one 17-year-old decides to murder his classmates and then gets tried as an adult does not in any way mean that all 17-year-olds should be treated as adults when it comes to drinking laws. etc. The other 17-year-olds are not making a choice to murder their classmates. There is nothing hypocritical whatsoever about it.

Okay, I'm not the NRA, but let me address your trolling anyway:

any kind of safety regulations or calls for personal responsibility are the same thing as trying to take their guns.

I've never heard the NRA take this stand-- in fact, their stand on the issue has always been about gun safety and personal responsibility at the individual level, rather than blanket legislation restricting the capability to own a firearm. In fact, it always seems to be the "gun grabbers" (a hilariously inaccurate term, lol) that ignore personal responsibility in favor of restrictions on ownership, carrying, etc. Since you seem to be oblivious to the NRA's stance on safety regulations, let me brief you:

They advocate for the responsible storage of firearms in a secure gun safe.
They advocate for the responsible use of firearms inherent safety mechanisms and procedures as outlined in the owner's manual.
They advocate for the responsible storage of ammunition.
They advocate for the use of trigger locks and other safety devices when the gun is not in use.
They recommend leaving guns unloaded until you intend to fire.
They advocate for and run gun safety classes and concealed carry licensing classes.

As for this:

What about the uncle who was careless with his weapon? Shouldn't he accept any responsibility?

How do you know he was "careless"? That's assuming an awful lot-- for all we know the gun was locked in a safe, but the kid cracked the combination. For someone who just advocated for personal responsibility, you seem awful keen to turn around and blame the uncle rather than the kid who committed murder. Shirking that whole personal responsibility ideal already? Do you have a stand you're trying to make or don't you? Either the kid takes personal responsibility for stealing his uncle's gun and murdering his classmates, or you blame, what? The uncle for (allegedly) not storing his gun properly? The gun manufacturer? The bullet manufacturer? The school system? His parents? You have a choice-- you can blame the criminal for his criminal acts, or you can drag a bunch of innocent people into it who did not break the law just to satisfy your own blame-happy idiocy.

@WMG - Thank you for your post - nice "smackdown" :-)

One of the worst offenses I see from "Libs" is that they tend to just make up what they "think" is the position of the opposition without actually HEARING anything anyone else says. And Alverant is guilty of the same fault....

I absolutely LOATH when Republicans are called Bible toting fanatics - I'm a Rep (obviously;), and I don't even go to church - nor do most of the Reps I know..... Just more of the same Dem propoganda crap again and again...

(sorry for the generally irrelevant post but Alverant started it!!)

Hey WMG, for someone who is not the NRA, you are quite familiar with them. Are you **sure** that you are not the NRA? :-)

We'd all be a lot better off if there were a lot fewer hand guns. This young man in Ohio would not have been able to kill so many with a knive or baseball bat. What other weapon allows you to kill so compassionately, as a hand gun with a bullet to the head, so you don't suffer?

If Americans were smart, they'd look for ways to reduce the number of people who can buy hand guns, instead of going the NRA route, which is to promote hand gun ownership.

Americans used to be smarter. Once upon a time, we got together and restricted the sale of machine guns.

No, we won't see legislation restricting hand gun purchases. This is because some people in America LOVE hand guns. Hand guns are like children to some people. They would simply not be without. And, the hand gun can do no wrong (don't blame the hand gun). It's wierd. Even weirder is that relatively few people in America own a hand gun.

This young man in Ohio would not have been able to kill so many with a knive or baseball bat.

An automobile

Police believe a Pueblo man was drunk and driving a truck about 100 mph when he allegedly ran a stoplight then broadsided a vehicle Saturday night, killing three Alamosa teenage girls.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – A 38-year-old truck driver from Buffalo was convicted of criminal vehicular homicide and careless driving in the May 2010 fatal crash that killed two people and an unborn child on Interstate 35 in Lakeville.

Jason Styrbicky was convicted by a Dakota County judge of three counts of criminal vehicular homicide and one count of careless driving.

A knife

LONDON -- A man was arrested Sunday on suspicion of stabbing six people to death, including three children, on the British island of Jersey in what was the deadliest crime in the community's living memory, police said.

Two female tourists who died in Atlantic City after being stabbed in an apparent robbery attempt were from Scarborough, police have confirmed.

The victims were stabbed repeatedly with a 30-centimetre butcher knife during the confrontation with another woman at around 10 a.m. Monday outside Bally's casino and hotel in a popular tourist area, local police said.

A baseball bat

A painkiller-hooked junkie in Florida beat a couple to death with a baseball bat and then ran errands with one of the bludgeoned bodies in the trunk of a car - including a trip to see one of his victim's parents, police said.

Hernando County police said Craig Lede, 40, brutally attacked John W. Ketsemidis, 29, of Spring Hill, and Dana D. Nelson, 28, of Masaryktown, at his home last week over a measly debt.

the hand gun can do no wrong (don't blame the hand gun). It's wierd. Even weirder is that relatively few people in America own a hand gun.

So in the cases above we should blame alcohol, the autos, the knives, and the baseball bat rather than the people. Okay.

In America, we do our killing with hand guns. It is not useful to show that it is possible to kill with any other kind of weapon. The FBI murder stats show that very few people are killed each year with a baseball bat. Even knives are use relatively infrequently.

It's hand guns. So, do not try to sign me up to advocate for restrictions on the sale of knives. I don't want to stop you from doing that, and I will not try to change your mind about restricting the sale of knives.

We already do a pretty good job of regulating automobiles.

It is not useful to show that it is possible to kill with any other kind of weapon.

But it is useful in showing that your statement was in valid.

It's hand guns.

Therefore what? The homicide rate has been going down for about 30 years. In 2006 there were 7,836 killed with handguns, in 2010 it was 6,009. Going down every year even though ownership is increasing.

But it is useful in showing that your statement was in valid.

What did I say that is not valid?

ownership is increasing.

Can you post a reference to show that hand gun ownership is increasing?

What did I say that is not valid?

This young man in Ohio would not have been able to kill so many with a knive or baseball bat.

Can you post a reference to show that hand gun ownership is increasing?

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/121611-firearms-commerce-2011.pdf Knock yourself out.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives all citizens the right to keep and bear arms. If data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics are any indication, many Americans are exercising this freedom. Nationally, 42 percent of people responding to a 2008 survey reported having a gun in their home. That's up from 36 percent in 1999, when gun ownership reached an all-time low.

Among gun owners, 58 percent own pistols, 63 percent own shotguns and 59 percent own rifles [source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003, 2008]. The sales data paint a slightly different picture. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a third of all gun sales can be attributed to handguns (such as revolvers and pistols), a third to rifles and shotguns, and a third to ammunition.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/5-most-popular-guns.htm

This young man in Ohio would not have been able to kill so many with a knive or baseball bat.

He would not have been able to kill so many with a baseball bat. Indeed, in some situations, it is possible for someone to kill more than one person with a baseball bat. But this rarely happens. Don't you agree? Just a case of the exception proving the rule.

In any event, there is no running away from the data, in America, we do our killing with hand guns. Baseball bats as murder weapons is not a problem. Stop playing little word games.

BTW, thanks for that link to the gov't report, looks like good info.

Nationally, 42 percent of people responding to a 2008 survey reported having a gun in their home. That's up from 36 percent in 1999, when gun ownership reached an all-time low.

Ugh, another survey. Well, I'll tell you, if someone asked me if I had a gun in my home, I might say yes, even though I do not. What possible reason would I have to tell someone that I do not have a gun in my home? I don't want to hear about your surveys.

Even weirder is that relatively few people in America own a hand gun.

* Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]

Just me, but I wouldn't consider some 100 million handguns in circulation (and increasing) as "relatively few." 1/3 of all guns owned in the US are handguns. Roughly half of all Americans own some kind of firearm, so by extrapolating that (admittedly in an unscientific manner), around 50 million Americans own handguns. That's pretty close to the survey data, which concluded that 40-45 million adults own handguns in America. That's a sizeable constituency.

And no, I am not a member of the NRA, but I am a responsible firearms owner with one rifle and one handgun to my name. I know about the NRA's stance because I looked at becoming a member for awhile and reviewed their materials. I opted not to become a member, but it wasn't politically motivated, nor was it due to any aversion I had to their overall message. I simply chose not to entangle myself with them-- there are too many people all too eager to accuse you of stupidity, discount your opinion or otherwise disenfranchise you based on your affiliations. I'd rather people take me for what I am, rather than what they assume I am. In other words, I simply didn't see any benefit.

Relatively few Americans do own hand guns. But those who do frequently own more than one hand gun.

When you said what the NRA does, well, that was an incomplete list. The NRA pressured Congress to not fund research that might reflect negatively on firearms. The NRA urges elected officials to pass Stand Your Ground laws. Anyway

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/11/138354/bloomberg-guns-arizona/?mobile=nc

Sorry, man. I think Bloomburg is a disconnected blowhard. I frankly don't buy into a single word that idiot has to say. That article was also referencing the shooting in AZ (Gab Giffords). The problem is that even the proposed legislation they want wouldn't have stopped him from getting the gun. Loughner had no felonies on record and no psychiatric restrictions were filed against him. Ergo, the whole "we need tougher regulations" was an attempt to further an agenda on the coattails of a national tragedy, which is despicable in its own right, on a fraudulent basis. I don't know about you, but I don't like being manipulated by emotional pleas devoid of truth.

Well look, I don't want this to become a discussion of Bloomberg. (I hardly agree with all his positions. Although, he has been very successful in the private and public sector. So I think you are stupid to close your mind to anything he has to say. He probably does have some things to say that you would find useful.)

Your point about Loughner having no psychatric restrictions filed against him is a very good one. What you are pointing out is that mentally unstable people can get guns. There's no barrier to stop them from getting guns. All they need to do is come up with the $$ to purchase, and there you have it, a whacko with a hand gun. Nice and legal.

Is there anyway that we can improve this situation? Or, must we have a system where we find out who the whackos are, by letting them easily buy guns and see if they kill anyone?

@Davey

The only way to prevent people like loughner from getting a gun would be to have a mandatory psychological evaluation from a psychiatrist prior to purchase, a mandate that would see fierce opposition from your average American gun-buyer and worse, would put one person (the psychologist) in a position to arbitrarily bar people from owning firearms based on his or her personal views on the matter. In other words, there's no way to enforce that without personal bias becoming a factor. This is already a problem (and the subject of several lawsuits) in NY state, where the local sheriff/LEO chief has been given the authority to provide handgun permits (not permits to carry, but permits to purchase) and there have been numerous cases where well-qualified individuals were arbitrarily denied the permit without explanation. Suppose the sheriff and/or psychologist is a racist? Too far left? Too far right? And making it a bureaucratic matter is unlikely to work either. Simple questionnaires won't work-- they're notoriously inaccurate (easy to manipulate, etc) and there really isn't any other method that I can devise. So, frankly I don't see any viable method to make that work. I wouldn't mind a requirement of a gun-safety course, though. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Yes, a gun training class, and if the instructors decide that a person is not safe to possess a hand gun, no purchase. A crazy person may even decide to not even enroll in a training class. I think a mandatory training class would be a great idea. You have to know something about handling a hand gun, and right now there is no way for us to know that someone knows how to handle a hand gun, at the time they purchase.

Stop playing little word games.

That would be you. You made the unqualified statement "he would not have been able to kill so many." I gave you examples where just as many were killed with the objects that you listed. Your response, as is often the case, was to go off on a tangent ignoring the fact that what you said was refuted.

I don't want to hear about your surveys.

Still struggling with higher math eh?

Still struggling with higher math eh?

Yes, yes I am.

You made the unqualified statement "he would not have been able to kill so many."

I stand by my statement. This whacko with a hand gun killed three and injured two. He would not have been able to commit the same mayhem and murder in this exact same situation, with a baseball bat. The dead and injured were healhty young people. This whacko could NEVER have killed those three and wounded those two with a baseball bat.

Plus, as the whacko hand gun murderer said, he didn't want the victims to suffer. So he used a hand gun to shoot them in the head. He probably would not even have tried to kill if he did not have a hand gun. Because, as everyone knows, all other murder weapons cause suffering.

Guns do kill people

PEOPLE kill people, a gun is just a tool like any other, albiet an efficient one for completing the task.

Wow, did you come up with that all on your own?

Plenty of people have hard times growing up - miserable times, that doesn't mean they have the right to kill someone- particularly innocent bystanders! This kid is SCREWED up! - no doubt. Quite frankly, that he has been deemed fit to stand trial surprises me. But the professionasl seem to feel he is NOT insane, which leaves only one other option; he's a cruel, killing jerk.

Sooo, if people want to disparage him here - power to them.

@ Taj; Cute, well-written diatribe. Could have been cut and pasted from the bible. However, the world doesn't work that way in real life. This punk may have lied, but he said he was never bullied, was not under stress, had no vendettas with anybody. I was bullied when I was in school...and yes, it was stressful and I thought about terrible payback, but I never killed anyone. He said he was never on drugs, no talking-to-God stuff or anything like that. The way you bring up his father and mother, but without any explanation...well that sounds like the classic 'blame-the-parents' defense lawyer trick. I had a violent alcoholic father who nearly killed my mother, a pretty bad childhood of things a kid shouldn't see, but I never killed anyone. One thing I absolutely know after reading your apology for this POS...it wasn't YOUR kids he killed. Come back and write another pretty note when it IS your kid, we'll listen then.