Man tries to rob a person with a pellet gun - gets shot by real gun.

[Syncop8r]

Someone is trying to kill you. This is the only justifiable reason to shoot is self defense and fear for grevious bodily harm or death.

So was it really self defence? Is threatening someone with a gun the same as trying to kill them? (The answer to this will vary from person to person) If he had handed over his money then the robber would probably (but not certainly) have left him alone, therefore no need to defend himself.

Perhaps the robber would one day 'graduate' to a real firearm when he could.

[Syncop8r]

The dead scumbag is the VICTIM?    GIVE ME A BREAK!

I don't think anyone has suggested that.

[HarleyXJGuy]

Someone is trying to kill you. This is the only justifiable reason to shoot is self defense and fear for grevious bodily harm or death.

So was it really self defence? Is threatening someone with a gun the same as trying to kill them? (The answer to this will vary from person to person) If he had handed over his money then the robber would probably (but not certainly) have left him alone, therefore no need to defend himself.

Perhaps the robber would one day 'graduate' to a real firearm when he could.

Assuming the old man did not know it was a pellet gun.

So was it really self defence?

Yes, not yes but smurf yes.

Is threatening someone with a gun the same as trying to kill them? (The answer to this will vary from person to person) Yes it is exactly the same and will not vary.

You point a gun at me and I have the chance I will shoot you. I will not ask politely what you have planned or wait for you to bust off a couple of shots. The difference between threaten and murder is about four pounds of pressure and a the smallest bit of a second.

If he had handed over his money then the robber would probably (but not certainly) have left him alone, therefore no need to defend himself.

We are assuming the gun came after the man was fully aware it was a robbery and not murder. We are assuming the old man would be willing to take the cretins word on this fact. We are assuming the bad guy would not just kill him after the robbery was over to avoid identification. A lot of assumptions to bet your life on. No need to defend himself is a strong declaration in this situation I think.

[DazMechanical]

There's a saying my grandpa used to say when I was little,
"When you play with the big boys don't cry when you get hurt" or something along those lines.
Kinda fits this situation well I think,
When you use a fake gun for a robbery don't cry when somebody shoots you dead with a real gun.

Idiot!

He got what he deserved!

[HarleyXJGuy]

There's a saying my grandpa used to say when I was little,
"When you play with the big boys don't cry when you get hurt" or something along those lines.
Kinda fits this situation well I think,
When you use a fake gun for a robbery don't cry when somebody shoots you dead with a real gun.

Idiot!

He got what he deserved!

This.

[firiki]

Sorry if I made you appear to say something you didn't, I must have missed that

No firiki, don´t worry. 

My answer wasn´t for you, it was for the Capt. and his interpretation that i would suggest ........ what i didn´t.

Yes, I see that now 

On topic, I'd be interested to know the bullet's point of entry. I seem to recall a 1985 case here where after the second trial a lethal shot on the back of the head from some 20m. away was considered as the result of self-defence. In my view, it was not.

[Lichtbote]

When you use a fake gun for a robbery don't cry when somebody shoots you dead with a real gun.

Idiot!

On this i agree.

He got what he deserved!

Here i disagree. In my eyes jail would be enough for being an idiot.

I assume his friends are clever enough to have learned from this, and will have and use a real gun next time. Seems safer to me.

[Lichtbote]

Harley,

i have my share of experience with violence, on both ends .... i assume more than most here. Nothing real criminal, just being a wild youth, as a doorman at a club, army, befriended but no member with a certain bike club.

Granted, most of the moments it was shot at me it wasn´t someone who stood in front of me - but i never heard of someone who tried to rob a group of armed soldiers.

Additional to that i only faced a gun once, in my younger years and it was a "discussion" between us and another group of bikers. No robbery, just threatening due to different point of views on some things.


But reading a lot of the pro-gun arguments seems strange to me - not sure if they are made up to proof a certain pov, or if it´s really that bad in the US. If yes, it seems our criminals are generally more civilized - maybe cause it´s much harder to get a real gun here, or cause they don´t have to be concerned about crazy reactions? I don´t know.

I know of about 10-15 armed robberies - no "i have heard from someone who...", not from the newspaper - it happened around my wifes company. Every victim handed over the money, and not a single one was shot. My wife was one of them.

She is manager at a big local supermarket chain, and the old boss was the opinion the managers have to deliver the days takings to the headquarter, instead of having them collected by a paid professional sec. company.
Off course that was no big secret, and several robberies happend to the transporting persons.

When it happend to my wife it was at the headquarters parking lot, 2 men jumped out of the bushes close to the lighted entrance. One directed a gun to her and asked for the money. She handed it over, and the 2 jumped back into the green to flee. The police caught them a few streets away.

If you have no connections to the organized crime, it´s really hard to get a real gun here. The 2 were no professionals, so they only had a unloaded blank gun. Not even being real criminals - one was the owner of a trucking company that went down, desperate to feed his family and pay some bills and wages. The other was a follower, one of his truckdrivers.

Would i have beaten the hell out of him if i had a chance to? Yeah, you can bet on that.
But do i think he should be killed? Definately no.

[firiki]

All this talk about self-defence reminds me of this song the lyrics of which I don't like but whose sound I do enjoy:

eXeCute, by Deus Ex Machina*



Lyrics

Execute the law time’s so short
execute the state execute the things you hate
Violence for them who shoot you dead
get you to the right get a gun ‘n’ hold it tight
The slimy worms, the right way
someday I ‘m gonna pay
Execute the law time’s so short
fight the pain don’t you ever play this game
execute tonight don’t you look behind
you can’t change my mind
this shivers up and down my spine
The slimy worms, the right way
someday I’m gonna pay


*The band's name reminds me of another song:

La nostalgie de Dieu, by Hubert-Felix Thiefaine ()



Lyrics

En ce quinzième dimanche après carnaval
Je me souviens d'avoir lu quelque part dans le journal
A moins que ce ne soit dans la Bible des gidéons
Volée dans un de ces motels à la mords-moi l'mormond
Je me souviens d'avoir lu que le démiurge au chômage
Un jour d'ennui avait fabriqué l'homme à son image
Lucy n'était pas encore née quant à l'Abel du Tchad
Il n'avait pas encore testé l'usage de ses gonades

Le démiurge au chômage
Fit l'homme à son image
C'est une histoire d'amour
D'amour, d'amour toujours
Dieu est amour
Et Jésus change le beurre en vaseline
Dieu est in

Cette histoire s'est passée très loin des oxydes de carbone
Environ 3 millions d'années avant Michael Jackson
On peut donc affirmer sans offenser son archevêque
Que Dieu a la gueule et l'aspect d'un australopithèque
Dieu est un drôle de mec
Un australopithèque
Oui mais on l'aime quand même
Dieu est amour toujours
Dieu est amour
Et Jésus change le beurre en vaseline
Dieu est in

Deus ex machina
Deus ex Testa Rossa
Deus ex Lamborghini
Deus ex Maserati
Deus ex Aston Martin
God gode !
Deus ex machine
Deus sex machine
God is sex machine
God gode !

Hint: Look up gode (abbreviation for godemichet). An image search should suffice.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is we cannot start killing what we don't like because if ==>

aggression (a) is met with agression (a+1) then the first aggression would have to become (a+1+1) and would have to be met with aggression (a+1+1+1) and so on ad infinitum et ultra and where would that lead? It might perhaps lead to many happy weapons manufacturers, provided them and their clients are still alive  The reasons for crime have to be seeked in social inequity and let's not forget states are formed by exerting violence on their own people and others. States have the monopoly of violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence .

Some people may not like this monopoly, which brings us to the first song in this post. I hope I made some sense and that I haven't gone too far 

[Mr. Whippy]

We are actually talking about 2 different but related issues.

1.  How should a society deal with violent crime (in a general sense)?

2.  How should an INDIVIDUAL deal with another individual (or individuals) who are threatening bodily harm during the commission of a crime?

These 2 questions have very different answers (for most people) and a tremendous difference in nuance as one starts to look at specific examples.

Speaking only to this specific event, I have absolutely no problem with the action of the old man.  None at all.  In fact, I would be happy to see him sue the attacker's family for psychological stress/PTSD.  You would have to show me some suggestion that the old man was out trolling for robbers to give any credence to the old man acting inappropriately.  Innocent until proven guilty, yes?

As a side note regarding gun ownership, anyone who wants to legislate against ownership of inanimate objects because they are designed to injure/kill should be then willing to accept any and all knife laws.  It's simply a different point on the same spectrum.  You may not like anti-knife laws, but no one can claim they can't be used as offensive weapons.  jmo.

[Aloha]

Is there ever a situation where one would be "justified" to take a life?  I find it strange to believe anyone would not fight for his/her life when faced with what they felt someone trying to take theirs.  We'll never know what this old man was feeling at the time other than a gun was pulled on him and a struggle ensued followed by the dead guy. 

We can agree this type situation won't be seen the same by all of us and that's what makes this place so terrific.  It's great to hear what other think and what perspectives are from around the world. 

Those who have been involved with taking a life know it's not an easy thing to do, even in the most hostile of situations.  Unless the old man is a psychopath I'm sure he's struggling as well with what happened. 

       

             

[magentus]

As a side note regarding gun ownership, anyone who wants to legislate against ownership of inanimate objects because they are designed to injure/kill should be then willing to accept any and all knife laws.  It's simply a different point on the same spectrum.  You may not like anti-knife laws, but no one can claim they can't be used as offensive weapons.  jmo.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement: Guns are designed only to kill. Knives are designed for cutting, slicing and many other non-lethal tasks. Just because I don't agree with gun ownership doesn't mean I HAVE to agree to banning all knives.

We of all people should stay away from this sort of mindset, however we feel about the original topic.

I am pacifist but I wasn't that old man, or the guy robbing him so I'll stay quiet about that and I respect others opinions, after all my opinion is as valid as anyone elses, but I really disagree with the above.

[Mr. Whippy]

As a side note regarding gun ownership, anyone who wants to legislate against ownership of inanimate objects because they are designed to injure/kill should be then willing to accept any and all knife laws.  It's simply a different point on the same spectrum.  You may not like anti-knife laws, but no one can claim they can't be used as offensive weapons.  jmo.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement: Guns are designed only to kill. Knives are designed for cutting, slicing and many other non-lethal tasks. Just because I don't agree with gun ownership doesn't mean I HAVE to agree to banning all knives.

I don't believe you can give a situation where a knife is the only way to accomplish a cutting task.  Scissors, lopping shears, saws, etc.  A reasonable person can make a very valid argument against allowing ownership of open blades by the general public.

[sawman]

Off topic but I'm impressed this conversation has survived as long as it has. Hats off to all of you for keeping this civil 

[AimlessWanderer]

We are actually talking about 2 different but related issues.

1.  How should a society deal with violent crime (in a general sense)?

2.  How should an INDIVIDUAL deal with another individual (or individuals) who are threatening bodily harm during the commission of a crime?

These 2 questions have very different answers (for most people) and a tremendous difference in nuance as one starts to look at specific examples.

Agreed!

Number 1 varies between locations due to the culture and hazards, and I believe that is only fair and right.

Number 2 I believe is almost universally to use reasonable force according to the situation, and I can't fault that logic either

[derekmac]

You can stab someone with a metal knitting needle just as easy as a knife.  The sole purpose of a gun is to kill, where a knife has many useful things it can do. 

I carry a knife daily, but not with intent to do harm, or use for self defense.  I could very easily stab someone with my Torch II though.  If you carry a gun, then the sole purpose of carrying it is to be able to shoot someone if you think the need is there.

Now, if you live in a place where wildlife can be life threatening, then by all means, carry whatever you need to to survive.

Of course, this is just my opinion.  I would NEVER look down on someone here (or anywhere) for carrying a gun, it just goes against what I think is necessary. 

[AimlessWanderer]

As a side note regarding gun ownership, anyone who wants to legislate against ownership of inanimate objects because they are designed to injure/kill should be then willing to accept any and all knife laws.  It's simply a different point on the same spectrum.  You may not like anti-knife laws, but no one can claim they can't be used as offensive weapons.  jmo.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement: Guns are designed only to kill. Knives are designed for cutting, slicing and many other non-lethal tasks. Just because I don't agree with gun ownership doesn't mean I HAVE to agree to banning all knives.

I don't believe you can give a situation where a knife is the only way to accomplish a cutting task.  Scissors, lopping shears, saws, etc.  A reasonable person can make a very valid argument against allowing ownership of open blades by the general public.

I'm not sure if my views conflict with this or not. I think the UK originally got this about right. A sub 3" slippy for general carry. I can't imagine I'd do so well eating an apple with scissors. Larger/fixed/locking blades can be carried and used if there is just cause. The difference between "weapon" and "could be used as weapon" needs to have a balanced view unless we look at banning pens, large bunches of keys, scarves, walking sticks, cars, rocks...

[Mr. Whippy]

You can stab someone with a metal knitting needle just as easy as a knife.  The sole purpose of a gun is to kill, where a knife has many useful things it can do. 

I carry a knife daily, but not with intent to do harm, or use for self defense.  I could very easily stab someone with my Torch II though.  If you carry a gun, then the sole purpose of carrying it is to be able to shoot someone if you think the need is there.

Now, if you live in a place where wildlife can be life threatening, then by all means, carry whatever you need to to survive.

Of course, this is just my opinion.  I would NEVER look down on someone here (or anywhere) for carrying a gun, it just goes against what I think is necessary.

I completely disagree with that.  I carry a gun most days I'm on the farm for several reasons:

1.  Vermin control.  Ground hogs dig holes which are dangerous to horses.  If I see them in the horse pasture, I shoot them.
2.  Euthanasia.  When deer are hit by cars, we find them down by the creek extremely shocky and exhausted.  It's the humane thing to do
3.  Rabies abatement.  When rabid animals are warbling across the farm, I shoot them.  The state has had so many positive results from our farm, they don't need the data for tracking and only want to pick up the animal if there has been an exposure (dogs, cats, people or horses) for treatment decision making
4.  Pleasure.  Shooting targets.  Just like with a slingshot, bow and arrow or air pistol.  It's fun.
5.  Protection (not me so much as my wife):  This doesn't have to do with people.  This has to do with the coyote-wolf hybrids which are now common in the Eastern US.  Often called coywolves, an 80 lb example was hit and killed on the road 4 miles down from us.   Unlike fox, coywolves hunt in packs.  My wife does not want to be out on a horse and come across a pack.  Btw, her carrying a gun off the farm is technically illegal in Maryland and there is virtually no way for her to get a carry permit.  She carries anyway for protection.


Btw, using the logic that "but those are almost all examples of killing" is a false logic.  Rat poison has only one purpose too, yet you can buy as much as you want at the local hardware store.  (And it can be used very effectively to kill people too...)

[Mr. Whippy]

As a side note regarding gun ownership, anyone who wants to legislate against ownership of inanimate objects because they are designed to injure/kill should be then willing to accept any and all knife laws.  It's simply a different point on the same spectrum.  You may not like anti-knife laws, but no one can claim they can't be used as offensive weapons.  jmo.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement: Guns are designed only to kill. Knives are designed for cutting, slicing and many other non-lethal tasks. Just because I don't agree with gun ownership doesn't mean I HAVE to agree to banning all knives.

I don't believe you can give a situation where a knife is the only way to accomplish a cutting task.  Scissors, lopping shears, saws, etc.  A reasonable person can make a very valid argument against allowing ownership of open blades by the general public.

I'm not sure if my views conflict with this or not. I think the UK originally got this about right. A sub 3" slippy for general carry. I can't imagine I'd do so well eating an apple with scissors. Larger/fixed/locking blades can be carried and used if there is just cause. The difference between "weapon" and "could be used as weapon" needs to have a balanced view unless we look at banning pens, large bunches of keys, scarves, walking sticks, cars, rocks...

Apple slicer:

[AimlessWanderer]

Great for use at home, never considered pocket carrying one though  nothing better than a knife for dealing with ropes though (marine, lorry drivers, etc)

[dks]

A gun can also be described as being a tool/toy for shooting targets, clay pigeons etc. I know some purely target shooters who never go hunting or intend to kill anything with their gun. So can a bow. So, killing is not the only use for a gun.

However, if you are carrying a gun on you for self defence, or a knife, or baseball bat, or a tactical pen etc. then your only purpose for carrying it is to injure/threaten some baddy, if needed.

[Mr. Whippy]

Great for use at home, never considered pocket carrying one though  nothing better than a knife for dealing with ropes though (marine, lorry drivers, etc)

They make a flat one without wings as well.  Slip it in a pocket, barely bigger than a SwissCard.

[Mr. Whippy]

Great for use at home, never considered pocket carrying one though  nothing better than a knife for dealing with ropes though (marine, lorry drivers, etc)

Rope and cable shears:

[derekmac]

I completely disagree with that.  I carry a gun most days I'm on the farm for several reasons:

1.  Vermin control.  Ground hogs dig holes which are dangerous to horses.  If I see them in the horse pasture, I shoot them.
2.  Euthanasia.  When deer are hit by cars, we find them down by the creek extremely shocky and exhausted.  It's the humane thing to do
3.  Rabies abatement.  When rabid animals are warbling across the farm, I shoot them.  The state has had so many positive results from our farm, they don't need the data for tracking and only want to pick up the animal if there has been an exposure (dogs, cats, people or horses) for treatment decision making
4.  Pleasure.  Shooting targets.  Just like with a slingshot, bow and arrow or air pistol.  It's fun.
5.  Protection (not me so much as my wife):  This doesn't have to do with people.  This has to do with the coyote-wolf hybrids which are now common in the Eastern US.  Often called coywolves, an 80 lb example was hit and killed on the road 4 miles down from us.   Unlike fox, coywolves hunt in packs.  My wife does not want to be out on a horse and come across a pack.  Btw, her carrying a gun off the farm is technically illegal in Maryland and there is virtually no way for her to get a carry permit.  She carries anyway for protection.


Btw, using the logic that "but those are almost all examples of killing" is a false logic.  Rat poison has only one purpose too, yet you can buy as much as you want at the local hardware store.  (And it can be used very effectively to kill people too...)

I think where I said "if you live in a place where wildlife can be life threatening, then by all means, carry whatever you need to to survive" covers most of what you listed.

I think #4 is fine, but I don't think many people carry just to shoot cans.

I 100% agree that your wife (and you) should carry around the farm.  When we do night runs offroading, you are pretty much guaranteed to hear coyotes, and black bears are common in some areas too.  There's always a few of us that have a fixed blade on us just incase we're out of the rigs and are caught off guard.  I've personally (many, many years ago) been confronted by a pack of coyotes.  I was with a friend, and we had no means of defence on us, but we stood our ground and they eventually left.  I've also seen bear scat on the trails.

In a rural setting like you live in, I think you are much more justified to carry than someone that lives in a city and has never even seen wildlife, let alone be endangered by one.

A gun can also be described as being a tool/toy for shooting targets, clay pigeons etc. I know some purely target shooters who never go hunting or intend to kill anything with their gun. So can a bow. So, killing is not the only use for a gun.

However, if you are carrying a gun on you for self defence, or a knife, or baseball bat, or a tactical pen etc. then your only purpose for carrying it is to injure/threaten some baddy, if needed.

You are right that they can be used only for pleasure, but they were designed to kill, not shoot inanimate targets.

[derekmac]

I'd also have no problem going to the shooting range that's 5min from my house, and firing off a few clips for fun.

[Mr. Whippy]

I completely disagree with that.  I carry a gun most days I'm on the farm for several reasons:

1.  Vermin control.  Ground hogs dig holes which are dangerous to horses.  If I see them in the horse pasture, I shoot them.
2.  Euthanasia.  When deer are hit by cars, we find them down by the creek extremely shocky and exhausted.  It's the humane thing to do
3.  Rabies abatement.  When rabid animals are warbling across the farm, I shoot them.  The state has had so many positive results from our farm, they don't need the data for tracking and only want to pick up the animal if there has been an exposure (dogs, cats, people or horses) for treatment decision making
4.  Pleasure.  Shooting targets.  Just like with a slingshot, bow and arrow or air pistol.  It's fun.
5.  Protection (not me so much as my wife):  This doesn't have to do with people.  This has to do with the coyote-wolf hybrids which are now common in the Eastern US.  Often called coywolves, an 80 lb example was hit and killed on the road 4 miles down from us.   Unlike fox, coywolves hunt in packs.  My wife does not want to be out on a horse and come across a pack.  Btw, her carrying a gun off the farm is technically illegal in Maryland and there is virtually no way for her to get a carry permit.  She carries anyway for protection.


Btw, using the logic that "but those are almost all examples of killing" is a false logic.  Rat poison has only one purpose too, yet you can buy as much as you want at the local hardware store.  (And it can be used very effectively to kill people too...)

I think where I said "if you live in a place where wildlife can be life threatening, then by all means, carry whatever you need to to survive" covers most of what you listed.

I think #4 is fine, but I don't think many people carry just to shoot cans.

I 100% agree that your wife (and you) should carry around the farm.  When we do night runs offroading, you are pretty much guaranteed to hear coyotes, and black bears are common in some areas too.  There's always a few of us that have a fixed blade on us just incase we're out of the rigs and are caught off guard.  I've personally (many, many years ago) been confronted by a pack of coyotes.  I was with a friend, and we had no means of defence on us, but we stood our ground and they eventually left.  I've also seen bear scat on the trails.

In a rural setting like you live in, I think you are much more justified to carry than someone that lives in a city and has never even seen wildlife, let alone be endangered by one.

A gun can also be described as being a tool/toy for shooting targets, clay pigeons etc. I know some purely target shooters who never go hunting or intend to kill anything with their gun. So can a bow. So, killing is not the only use for a gun.

However, if you are carrying a gun on you for self defence, or a knife, or baseball bat, or a tactical pen etc. then your only purpose for carrying it is to injure/threaten some baddy, if needed.

You are right that they can be used only for pleasure, but they were designed to kill, not shoot inanimate targets.

I could survive just fine with injured deer slowly dying, ground hog holes and rabid animals (there are vaccines), but honestly, it about using a tool to improve quality of life.  It is, afterall a tool, like weedkiller, rat poison, mouse traps, flypaper etc.  I'm about 3 miles from major metropolitan Greater Baltimore area, so not really wilderness, but I get your meaning.

BTW, if I FORGET and carry my gun (which is open carried by me) off of my farm, it is a felony offense and I could easily lose my license to practice medicine.  Where's the logic in that?

[dks]

[Aloha]

(Image removed from quote.)

This is Awesome.  I wish I had this when I was young, oh heck who am I kidding I'd still have a blast with this 

[ToolJoe]

  This story is somewhat local (I live an hour or so from where it happened). The big typo in the article is Upper Darby is its own suburb and not a part of West Philadelphia. Other than that, I think the older guy was justified in what he did.

[firiki]

Hmmm... Where to start from?

I firmly believe that less guns equals less violent crimes, violent in numbers as well as viciousness. It's why I have been mixing the two issues all along. So:

First, are there any pocketable onion/cabbage/lettuce choppers like that cute apple slicer?

Then, if I don't keep rat poison in my kitchen cupboard I'm less likely to accidentaly put it in my tea, right?

Also, following the logic of calling a gun a tool I could argue that UAV drones and the subsequent air strikes carried out with these are tools used to export democracy or for ploughing the soil in a novel way. I won't because I don't believe these statements to be true. I could claim I'm the Pope in Rome, would anybody believe me

Next, is a semi-automatic weapon (some easily convertible to fully automatic if you know how to do it) any good against gophers? I can see the point in having rifles and two-barrel shotguns in rural areas but handguns are another thing entirely.

A piano on the head can be a murder weapon

( : A Fish Called Wanda - Ken Kills The Old Lady -finally-)

but guns are made for killing/inflicting injuries. Should falling pianos be prohibited because guns are made for killing/inflicting injuries? I don't see the need for that but maybe they should. Should guns be permitted because people have malicious intentions? I'd try to eradicate the reasons for the malicious intentions sooner than allow people (or neo-Nazi creeps like the Golden Dawn here, whose members of Parliament { } recently declared they'd vote for such a law ) to legally own firearms.

Target practice is completely legit by me but if you're doing it for the excitement and the fun of it then shouldn't recreational drugs be allowed also? Enough with my absurdity.

The way I see it there's a fetish about guns in the US of A. I just googled "babes with guns" and loads of pictures came up. Now, there's nothing wrong with fetishes, some like the feet, others are into leather or kinky lingerie and generally whatever rocks one's boat is fine as long as there's no harm done. This particular fetish is kind of lethal though. It's also expensive. Mucho dinero, sí señοr. That one is my main point, that gun ownership is promoted by a lobby going for the big money as was happening with tobacco in the '60' for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

Finally, I'm still wondering about the shooting sprees in schools in the US.