Death Sentence for this guy

[Dragon]

WARNING!!!! CONTAINS BRUTAL AND SHOCKING IMAGES NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN OR PEOPLE WITH WEAK NERVES!!!!!


he killed seven people because a woman did not want to date him. I think death sentence is not what any person deserves, a lifelong holiday in prison would be more adequate. But thats not what I want to talk about. What I found most shocking when I saw this video was that he had no particular reason, no bad past and nothing that could have made him that crazy. Yet he took a gun and killed seven innocent people who had no relation to the woman, rejecting him, at all! So what I want to ask you: How can we prevent such a horrific event?
In my opinion the first step is to forbid guns and other weapons for normal people, not only in the UK or in Germany but all over the whole world people should banish guns and other weapons from the "civilian" market.
But what else can we people do?

 

[Cookalarcha]

My god just why wots the point of this he must have had a shitty life do end up killing people for a crap reason. This is just like the two boys who saved up weapons and things and went on a rampage aroun there school killing mainly there versions of chavs and letting only there closests friends go before they started!?

 

[Birdy]

Isnt it funni how people react to things!? But its all about the way you deal with pain.

He should get watever is given to him as he did kill people for a reaction that is way out of bounds.

If there is anyway to stop all guns, then do it. But i dont see one and I dont think there is much more we can do!

 

[Cpt.Spazmo]

Unfortunately if you ban all guns a knife will be used, or a gardening implements, or a stick with nails in, or home made explosives etc.. While I'm sure the argument would be made that a gun allows him to kill more easily a knife is just as deadly, within 10 feet possibly more so, and a lot less noticeable.

Or ‘robbed’ of an ‘easy’ rampage the response may be a slow spate of killings, who knows?

I wish I had a simple answer.

 

[DocBot]

Yes, and with that position, why not allow people to have their own cluster bombs? or nukes? Sure, it would take longer for them to kill as many people with a knife but it would be "just as deadly".

 

[Cpt.Spazmo]

Yes, and with that position, why not allow people to have their own cluster bombs? or nukes? Sure, it would take longer for them to kill as many people with a knife but it would be "just as deadly".

Yes because the people with cluster bombs always use them on the 'right' people for the 'right' reasons. Also the comparison was with a gun, within 10 feet, not heavy ordinance please don’t quote out of context. Also no position was taken, only the pointing out of the consequence of an action.

To apply this logic, in the same extreme, then every one should be put into their own padded cell with feeding and waste tubes. Maybe the energy generated by their bodies could be used to power some machine, like human batteries

The point was that banning guns is a knee jerk reaction that is easy to get behind but doesn’t solve the problem. As I said I wish I had the answer.

 

[DocBot]

I must have misunderstood you then, it looked like you were saying something along the lines of "no use banning anything since people will find means to hurt each other anyway". I must have misunderstood. Apologies.

There is a psychological factor involved in the killing of another human being, making it "harder" or how you'd like to put it, the closer you are to the person (as in physical distance). Guns take some of that away and as such makes it easier for the would-be murderer. Also there are a lot of accidents with guns that are rather unlikely to happen with a knife or a board with nails or whatever. There are a lot of points to be made but statistics seems to prove that, with more strict gun laws, less people die.

 

[Cpt.Spazmo]

To be flippant the problem with banning things is that they ensure that they are in the hands of the criminals.

As for the psychological factor the statistics for various wars (policing actions etc.) would seem to suggest that a gun makes little, if any, difference at close to middle distances that any other weapon. In fact a large number of modern army training techniques are specifically designed to overcome the gun wielders desire not to shoot and possibly kill people. Or let them play counter-strike. At long ranges I would agree it would be much easier, psychologically and practically, to use a gun.

Accidents are I think a separate matter and I agree guns are dangerous they have been designed, and refined, to kill. The removal of any contributory factor to accidental or deliberate death will lead to a decrease in deaths.

I do find your signature sums it up rather well. On a personal note I have been hit with a shotgun once, and while not lethal or even in this case debilitating, it was not pleasant to dig shot from under my skin (especially to disinfect) and I have little love of firearms or some of the fools who use them.