I just want to express my grief.

[kkokkolis]

I know that I shouldn't discuss gun control, abortions, death penalty, universal healthcare, Israel/Palaistine conflict, evolution, immigration, crime, racism, religion, capitalism and such matters on web sites that have representation from the US, and I don't intend to.
I just want to express my grief for yet another massacre of young innocent children.
I dropped out from EDC forums and Facebook Groups that contain EDC guns or gun collection pictures.
I can't stand the sight of them anymore, although I served and my father carried guns as a Policeman and I collect military miniatures and models.
That's it. What a pitty.

[greenbear]

I'm with you on this Kkokkolis, so terribly sad and it just seems to keep on happening

[Grant Lamontagne]

Absolutely and utterly senseless.  I weep for the families that are affected by this, and for humanity as a whole.

However, I believe that if the anti gun lobbies and the pro gun lobbies each took half their annual budgets, and put that money into solving mental health issues, we would see a lot better results than the current amount of bickering is doing.

Legal guns or non legal guns aside, I think we can all agree that no one in their right mind would shoot up a school, shopping mall, church, theatre etc.

Def

[kirk13]

Absolutely and utterly senseless.  I weep for the families that are affected by this, and for humanity as a whole.

However, I believe that if the anti gun lobbies and the pro gun lobbies each took half their annual budgets, and put that money into solving mental health issues, we would see a lot better results than the current amount of bickering is doing.

Legal guns or non legal guns aside, I think we can all agree that no one in their right mind would shoot up a school, shopping mall, church, theatre etc.

Def

Well said Boss

[Farmer X]

I believe that if the anti gun lobbies and the pro gun lobbies each took half their annual budgets, and put that money into solving mental health issues, we would see a lot better results than the current amount of bickering is doing.

Sounds about right.

[BadMechanic]

Absolutely and utterly senseless.  I weep for the families that are affected by this, and for humanity as a whole.

However, I believe that if the anti gun lobbies and the pro gun lobbies each took half their annual budgets, and put that money into solving mental health issues, we would see a lot better results than the current amount of bickering is doing.

Legal guns or non legal guns aside, I think we can all agree that no one in their right mind would shoot up a school, shopping mall, church, theatre etc.

Def

100% agree.

Something has to change and laws wont be the thing to do it. Has to be something bigger than a stroke of a pen before real change is done.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

[gregozedobe]

I would love to see something done that would make a real difference, but given what has(n't) happened after all the previous shootings I have very little confidence that this time will be any different. 

I expect there will lots of posturing and outpourings of grief, many, many statements along the lines of "We cannot allow this to continue happening", but in reality nothing of consequence will change over the longer term.

I would be so happy if I was proven wrong .....

[kkokkolis]

Some optimistic relief from our beloved Switzerland



Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Aloha]

I have typed a few thoughts and reactions but I have to delete each time.

Living in a state where a police union leader of a major city says its too violent to guarantee saftey  .    There's not much to add to the conversation.  We have to protect ourselves.  I'm not sure what that looks like for our schools  . 

             


 

   

[kkokkolis]

Treating SAKs as potential weapons is a huge joke considering this situation.


Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[pfrsantos]

Some optimistic relief from our beloved Switzerland



Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

Nope, that's how you should do it. No need to complicate things.

 

[powernoodle]

It is worth remembering that these tragedies are extremely rare, despite what one might think from the 24/7 coverage.  Of course one death is one too many.  But there are 48,000,000 public school students in America in 98,000 public schools.  Plus 35,000 private schools.  Schools, churches and public places are very safe in America and elsewhere if one looks at actual numbers rather than listening to talking heads on cable tv.  The coverage is grossly disproportionate to the evil being covered.  There were 797 homicides in Chicago alone last year, almost all confined to a relatively small geographic area and demographic.  40x the number of the Texas tragedy, and no daily news coverage.  There is a reason for that.

In like manner, commercial air travel is bizarrely safe given its inherent complexities. But 24/7 coverage of plane crash videos on CNN would make you stop flying, if that's the intended effect of the coverage.

There were 64 shark attacks in 2019.  Stay out of the water!  Monkey pox is the next pandemic! [Forget that there have been zero monkey pox death's in America, and the majority of cases in the UK are behavior-related].

Consider how the public could be manipulated with 24/7 coverage of kangaroo attacks.   Then we would all have an irrational fear of kangaroos.  Ban all kangas!  Embargo Australia!  http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/animals/kangaroo_attacks.htm

On and on we could go. 

My thesis is that we should not allow someone to supplant our reason with their emotion, especially when it its done to further their political or social agenda [whether left, right, up or down].   If we dispassionately consider the numbers instead of the spin, we get a much better valuation of reality.  It all depends on whether one wants to embrace reality, or not.

[dks]

I enjoy and use my guns, but there should be a way to stop morons and suicidal people from using them to kill innocent people. In many countries people have fully automatic guns and bullets at home, legally, to protect their country as part of the defense system, as well as shotguns, and never feel the desire to go around killing people that have done them nothing wrong.

No system is perfect and in most cases mental/security services  are the ones that missed the signs. Unfortunately using a gun or a car has become the easy and efficient way for these (insert any description you deem appropriate...................) to make a name for themselves for a few days. 

[gregozedobe]

In defence of our Oz marsupials I must point out that the risk of being killed by a rampaging 'roo is so close to zero that it is indistinguishable. 

The risk of innocents being killed by a deranged US gunman is significantly higher.   These shootings don't happen in any other 1st world country.

I think I saw an article somewhere that  this year there has been more than one mass shooting incidents per day (and 27 school shootings).  Just what rate is acceptable to US citizens ?

I have no issue with criminals killing each other in large numbers (although it is a waste of human lives), but innocent school children, cinema patrons, churchgoers, shoppers at malls and people just going about their daily lives shouldn't need to be in fear for their lives.

[GearedForwards]

It is worth remembering that these tragedies are extremely rare, despite what one might think from the 24/7 coverage.  Of course one death is one too many.  But there are 48,000,000 public school students in America in 98,000 public schools.  Plus 35,000 private schools.  Schools, churches and public places are very safe in America and elsewhere if one looks at actual numbers rather than listening to talking heads on cable tv.  The coverage is grossly disproportionate to the evil being covered.  There were 797 homicides in Chicago alone last year, almost all confined to a relatively small geographic area and demographic.  40x the number of the Texas tragedy, and no daily news coverage.  There is a reason for that.

In like manner, commercial air travel is bizarrely safe given its inherent complexities. But 24/7 coverage of plane crash videos on CNN would make you stop flying, if that's the intended effect of the coverage.

There were 64 shark attacks in 2019.  Stay out of the water!  Monkey pox is the next pandemic! [Forget that there have been zero monkey pox death's in America, and the majority of cases in the UK are behavior-related].

Consider how the public could be manipulated with 24/7 coverage of kangaroo attacks.   Then we would all have an irrational fear of kangaroos.  Ban all kangas!  Embargo Australia!  http://www.amazingaustralia.com.au/animals/kangaroo_attacks.htm

On and on we could go. 

My thesis is that we should not allow someone to supplant our reason with their emotion, especially when it its done to further their political or social agenda [whether left, right, up or down].   If we dispassionately consider the numbers instead of the spin, we get a much better valuation of reality.  It all depends on whether one wants to embrace reality, or not.

Your thesis excludes that, as Greg pointed out, there have been more mass shootings in 2022 than days. The personal chance of it happening to any given individual is not really the point, it's that it's happening period, and with such a massive frequency.

There have been 214 mass shootings in 2022 alone in the US, defined as 4 or more people shot (killed or injured) and not including the shooter themselves.

This doesn't happen elsewhere other than the US.

This is a problem. This is not media sensationalism.

And in light of a tragedy, it's okay to not jump into defending it. Just because you believe certain things doesn't mean that you should downplay what has happened with skewed statistics, it's okay to just let things be.

And let's put this into context: Children should never have to go through active shooter drills as part of their schooling.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I think we are all agreed that children should not have to have active shooter drills.

However, as has been demonstrated many times before, even I  countries where guns are banned, people so inclined will continue to kill large numbers of people- I recall an incident in Holland where someone drove a car through a crowd.  A similar thing happened with a rental truck and a bike lane in Toronto a few years ago.

And the London bombings, and recently in Paris as well.

As I said above, this is not a gun problem, this is a mental health problem, because no one in their right mind would do things like this.

Now let's make sure to be very careful as this thread could easily turn political, and I am pretty sure that we all have better things to do than pretend to be politicians.

After all, we actually accomplish things.

Def

[vadsoom]

I agree with Grant.

This is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

Each year all over the world, tens of thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers, yet there is no outrage about alcohol being the killer. The same is true of aggressive drivers, road rage, and stupidity while driving, but the cars are not blamed.

I believe this is because the consumption of alcohol and driving cars are considered politically acceptable and no one would challenge the privilege. Still, drunk driving and “stupid driving” are perceived as being “collateral damage” for people making poor choices.

Some would argue that alcoholism or anger management are diseases that are treatable, mental health issues. The booze and wheels are not blamed. Why? Because neither are politically charged.

The U.S.A. has changed in the past few years. Horrible crimes and sensationalist media have turned the perpetrators into celebrities, feeding more copycat killers. Increasing legal leniency has made punishments less severe and revolving-door courts are putting criminals back on the streets the same day the crimes are committed. Rather than condemning horrible acts, newscasters and politicians refer to these events as “tragedies” instead of calling them “murders.” In my book, a “tragedy” is something horrible that couldn’t be prevented. It may not be possible to prevent all murders, but they can be deterred.

I lived in Japan for three years, and have been to Singapore and many other countries with more draconian laws, heavy fines, and stinger enforcement than the U.S.A. it’s interesting that the tougher the laws, the less people are willing to take the risk in breaking the them.

I understand that many countries have banned guns, but for the U.S.A., that’s not the solution. I’ve thought that the “Batman movie shooting” would have never happened in states like Texas, South Carolina, or Florida because there would be a high probability that at a midnight movie showing in those states, there would be a MUCH greater chance that as soon as the shooter opened fire, there would be a hail of return fire from multiple LEGAL firearms from those attending the film.

These mass shootings have one in thing in common - they are all soft targets - chosen because it’s unlikely will be shooting back. Nightclubs, concerts, schools, and churches are all soft targets. In the Philippines, almost all banks and even some McDonald’s and JollyBee’s have a guard with a shotgun, M16, or automatic weapon loaded, exposed, and ready to use. There is zero doubt in my mind that the mere presence of a gun is a huge deterrent from those wishing to do harm. Only those whose mental state is unbalanced or are intent on mischief would dare challenge the barrel of a loaded weapon in the hands of a trained marksman.

Take away legal guns will mean only illegal guns remain. Nothing is ever said in the media about the thousands of criminals stopped in their tracks simply because a legal gun was drawn and without the exchange of fire.

It’s not the guns. Millions of responsible gun owners all over the world will never have a need to ever display a firearm in public and would never be inclined to do so.

If you aren’t ready to start blaming cars or beer, stop blaming guns. Society doesn’t often make celebrities out of drunk drivers or “road rage.” It’s time to stop making active shooters famous. 

Remember the “streaker” days when some fool would strip down and sprint through a football game or soccer match? The first few of them made it to national television and became famous. The television networks learned from their mistakes, pulled the cameras away, reported “a disturbance” to the viewing public, and quietly escorted the person away. No game, no fortune, no name in the newspapers, no news coverage. Streaking largely stopped because there was no “15 minutes of fame.”

It is time to get mental health under control, get MUCH tougher on crime, and stop blaming honest people for the acts of criminals.

[Farmer X]

It is time to get mental health under control, get MUCH tougher on crime, and stop blaming honest people for the acts of criminals.

+1.

I could go on about this, but now isn't the time.

[Syncop8r]

I disagree. If access to semi- (and fully) automatic firearms was severely restricted I very much doubt that the same amount of lives would be taken by people using other means such as vehicles.
Yes, it is a mental health problem in the first instance (although some perpetrators I would describe as evil rather than unwell) but those are very difficult to fix.

Australia and New Zealand restricted firearms following such tragedies, watch this space...

[Syncop8r]

There is a serious problem when parents are shopping for armoured kindergarten bags for their children.

[nate j]

In spite of what some activists, journalists, and politicians would have us believe, these types of incidents are actually extremely rare.  In fact, in the US today, you are statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed or wounded in a mass shooting…

2519 mass shooting casualties since 2009 ( https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/?_gl=1*qnn6e3*_ga*MTYyNjA2MjcxMS4xNjUzODAwMzcy*_ga_LT0FWV3EK3*MTY1MzgwMDM3My4xLjAuMTY1MzgwMDM3My4w )

2519 casualties / 13 years = 194 mass shooting casualties per year, average

~270 killed or injured by lightning per year ( https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds )


Given a US population of about 330 million, then, your approximate odds in a given year of:

Being killed or wounded in a mass shooting:  1 in 1,701,031

Being killed or injured by a lightning strike:  1 in 1,222,222

Winning a Powerball jackpot, assuming you buy a single ticket for every draw during the course of the year:  1 in 1,873,085

[nate j]

In spite of what some activists, journalists, and politicians would have us believe, these types of incidents are actually extremely rare.  In fact, in the US today, you are statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed or wounded in a mass shooting…

2519 mass shooting casualties since 2009 ( https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/?_gl=1*qnn6e3*_ga*MTYyNjA2MjcxMS4xNjUzODAwMzcy*_ga_LT0FWV3EK3*MTY1MzgwMDM3My4xLjAuMTY1MzgwMDM3My4w )

2519 casualties / 13 years = 194 mass shooting casualties per year, average

~270 killed or injured by lightning per year ( https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-odds )


Given a US population of about 330 million, then, your approximate odds in a given year of:

Being killed or wounded in a mass shooting:  1 in 1,701,031

Being killed or injured by a lightning strike:  1 in 1,222,222

Winning a Powerball jackpot, assuming you buy a single ticket for every draw during the course of the year:  1 in 1,873,085

[kkokkolis]

I am a Psychiatrist as you might already know. Most of these people have no mental illness. Most demonstrate Antisocial Personalities, some of them Schizoid or Paranoid. These are not diseases, just personalities that could be described as "mean", "evil", "outcasts" and such. There's no cure for that.
It is a problem of US and US citizens are the only ones that have the right and obligation to solve it, if they want to.
I just feel pity for the victims. And their parents.

Στάλθηκε από το MAR-LX1A μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

[Grant Lamontagne]

With all due respect to the psychiatric community, if the desire to murder random, innocent people isn't considered a mental illness, then I have to wonder about the logic of the classification system as a whole.

Def

[kkokkolis]

With all due respect to the psychiatric community, if the desire to murder random, innocent people isn't considered a mental illness, then I have to wonder about the logic of the classification system as a whole.

Def

You are right, but consider also that aggressiveness is a natural instict that we supress through learning (there are two types driven by two distinct areas of the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus, the emotional and the predatory) and all animals have these insticts. Amygdala and other brain areas, neurotransmitters (adrenaline and dopamine), hormones (mostly testosterone), human developement and social factors play their role. We are animals, we have the same insticts, but we supress them socially through learning and we release them mainly when it is considered appropiate by our society, in sports, war, defence, riot or counter riot situations etc.
Thugs, killers, rapists, sadists and even some soldiers or policemen (or some teachers or clerics) don't follow the societal rules and release their aggression for primary or secondary gain. They are antisocial, not mentally ill. They act more as animals and less as (what we think we ideally should be) humans.
Humans express more proactive and less reactive violence and that is a paradox, but also an evolutionary advantage over other animals and the nature, against who we released much  more violence and destruction than they could possibly have ever released against us.
Another note. If they were in fact or were considered mentally unstable by the law, they should get treatment and not any punishment at all, including capital punishment. But such treatment doesn't exist (with the exceptions of leucotomy and chemical castrations, which are more ambutations than medical treatments), so they go to jail or to the gallows historically.
They are different kind of people than most of us, belonging to the outer edge of the bell curve of Gauss, as were the most agressive wolves that humans killed, favoring the friendliest ones that became our best friends, the dogs.

[Nix]

With all due respect to the psychiatric community, if the desire to murder random, innocent people isn't considered a mental illness, then I have to wonder about the logic of the classification system as a whole.

Def

Psychopathy or Sociopathy are considered a mental illnesses by some psychologists and diagnosed as such. A Canadian psychologist (I forget his name...might be Hare) came up with a diagnostic checklist for psychopathy that is still used (in a modified form?) by some profilers and investigators. Most serial killers are considered to be sociopaths.

In the medical field, sociopaths or psychopaths are often diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder; however, this may not be a full or sufficient diagnosis for someone who commits mass-murder in an impulsive manner.

Intermittent Explosive Disorder is a mental illness diagnosis used to describe aggressive, impulsive outbursts that often result in violence and physical assault without premeditation. Such behavior can be lethal.

Some medical conditions can result in unregulated behavior and violence. Famously, Charles Whitman climbed a tower in Austin, Texas and started shooting people. He was later found to have a brain tumor that was thought to lead to his homicidal violence. Prior to shooting random people, Whitman had expressed distress at having unwanted violent urges and fantasies and sought help without success (obviously).

All of the above are considered mental illnesses. There are other mental and physical illnesses that may contribute to violence, probably more than I'm aware of.

kkokkolis: the US legal system treats individuals who have been deemed to lack competence due to a mental illness as not criminally liable for their action. I believe Canada and the UK have similar legal standards. Persons deemed "not guilty by reason of insanity" are not incarcerated in prisons, but are committed to state or federal mental institutions for treatment (as appropriate and available). Some mental illnesses, like Antisocial Personality Disorder, do not (usually) meet the standard of "not guilty by reason of insanity". In such cases, if found responsible and guilty, those persons are sentenced in the usual judicial manner.

Famously, John Hinckley Jr, who shot President Reagan, was found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and was committed to a mental hospital in Washington D.C. He was released from the hospital in 2016 with restrictions and conditions. He will be given an unconditional release, i.e. be a free man, starting.....June 2022.

[Aloha]

There is so much to unpack. 

vadsoom thank you for your thoughts. 

Syncop8r, I very much appreciate your thoughts as well.

I'm going to say unless the US can take ALL guns away this is not going to stop.  Its just not.  Yes many times the guns used were purchased legally.  The part thats important, no it paramount to understand, is bad guys will always have guns.  Its not terribly hard to get a weapon as a result.  Those who live in the part of society that doesn't deal with the criminal element may find it hard to believe.  If you want a gun here in the US and you cannot legally own one you can get one.  Taking guns away from those who want to purchase and can do so legally is not the solution. 

Taking ALL guns out of the US isn't a reality so we need to think differently.  Please understand anyone wanting a gun in the US can get one.     

Syncop8r, I am mixed as to how I feel about these folks who do such things.  You said "Yes, it is a mental health problem in the first instance (although some perpetrators I would describe as evil rather than unwell) but those are very difficult to fix."  I have mixed thoughts.  I appreciate yours.   

KK added, "Most of these people have no mental illness. Most demonstrate Antisocial Personalities, some of them Schizoid or Paranoid. These are not diseases, just personalities that could be described as "mean", "evil", "outcasts" and such. There's no cure for that."

There are evil people out there.  Its scary to think they exist but its true.  Sure some may have underlying issues but regardless as KK says, this cannot be cured.  What now? 

Take all the scary guns away.   Take all the assault rifles away.  Take away that which people believe makes it easy to kill large amounts of people away.  We are not gong to take away the evil in people who want to kill.  They will find a way and will kill.   

Murder is and has been illegal here in the US.  Its not a deterrent.  Never has been.  Never will be. 

The safeguards in place for the convicted murderer in our legal system means they live in prison for decades.  Some may find it hard to believe but depending on the murder some of these convicted murderers then are respected within the prison system.  They become big shots.  If they in fact have a personality disorder then there is no real consequence. 

So what now? 

We will never be a gunless society here in the US so we have to stop the focus on that.  I understand other countries have all but removed guns from theirs.  Its not gonna happen here.  Its just not. 

People will find a way to kill.  Should we be ok with that?  Absolutely not.  Mass killings are not to be accepted as consequences of mentally ill or evil people.  Rational thinking people want solutions.  I do. 

What we need to do is when we see something say something.  When our spidey senses kick in we need to say something.  We're hearing about all the missed "signs" of this particular evil/ill human.  People missed things.  People not saying things.  Even if they all said something then what?

Is this avoidable? I sadly don't believe it is.  Evil will find a way.   

   

[Nix]

Murder is and has been illegal here in the US.  Its not a deterrent.  Never has been.  Never will be. 
   

I'm going to disagree. Our legal system does help prevent or deter some crime. Some, not all.

We clearly see that when the rule of law is taken away crime rates increase.

If you don't think our laws against assault, battery, and murder are effective, would you be OK with saving taxpayer money by removing those laws from the books, not enforcing those laws, and not prosecuting those laws?

Is anarchy really a good solution? 

We know that most humans are moral and decent people. The true murderers are few. When they violate the law and are sent to prison, those individuals are removed from society by law and are less dangerous. For example, Gary Leon Ridgway was successfully incarcerated and his reign of murder ended.

[Aloha]

Let me try to clarify. 

We are not stopping murder.  No law ever enacted or that will be enacted will stop murder.  Do I say that to say we shouldn't have laws making it illegal?  Not at all. Thats not at all what I was trying to convey.       

Will laws and related punishments stop certain people who want to kill someone?  Yes.

It deters the pissed off parent whose kid was killed by the drink driver who got a slap on the wrist.  It deters the family from killing an individual who molested their kid.  I can go on and on but I hope I am conveying my thoughts effectively regarding who laws deter.   

Our laws regarding murder do not deter those who don't care.  That was my point of the quote you added from me.  The laws don't deter serial killers ( the person you mention ) who know full well murder is illegal.  It wont deter gang bangers.  It wont deter those who are mentally ill.  I can go on and on though I hope what I'm trying to convey is making sense. 

Laws are no deterrent to certain individuals.  To a small extent not to the parent who says F it and wants revenge for what was done to their kid or family member.  I'm not saying this is ok either.         

In no way was I saying we don't need laws in the case of murder, I'm sorry you read it that way  .  Quite the contrary.  Not only do we need those laws but we need the teeth to back them up.  I hope this is clear. 

To your point regarding the person you mention.  I am familiar with this particular case.  More so that I should be.  This person is exactly why I said what I said within the whole context of what I wrote not just the quoted part.  The quote you used was me trying to express laws wont deter the type people like the one you mention as well as others who just don't care or are impassioned.     

Here is a quote regarding what the prosecution side experienced with this person “In the five months of interviews, he displayed no empathy for his victims and expressed no genuine remorse. He killed because he wanted to. He killed because he could. He killed to satisfy his evil and unfathomable desires.”  There is no law to stop people like this but more so people who don't care.  Now he lives and will live out his years in prison.  To some this may seem like a punishment.  Its not.  Not everyone views incarceration as such.  Just a different life for them.  Humans can acclimatize quite well.

Nix, it was the whole context of what I wrote to which I made my statement,

Murder is and has been illegal here in the US.  Its not a deterrent.  Never has been.  Never will be.  Sorry if we still disagree.  Probably why even those who are in "charge" have a difficult time coming to an agreement. 

We need laws.  We need punishments with teeth.   
   

   

   

[Nix]

Nix, it was the whole context of what I wrote to which I made my statement,

Murder is and has been illegal here in the US.  Its not a deterrent.  Never has been.  Never will be.  Sorry if we still disagree.  Probably why even those who are in "charge" have a difficult time coming to an agreement. 

We need laws.  We need punishments with teeth.   
   

Well, I agree that some people, like the Uvalde murderer, will ignore the law and murder. That is self-evident. And some people do not have the mental ability to understand the law or the consequences of their actions. They may kill, too. So, sure, no law can prevent the unable or unwilling from doing murder.

I think you and I may be saying the same thing, there.

However, I also believe that some people, weighing the consequences, will choose not to shoot the neighbor they have a gripe with. In that sense, the law does deter some people.

Agreed, the serial murderer case I cited is an example of someone who killed despite the law. However, once he was caught, the law prevented him from killing again. In that sense, the law and its enforcement, has prevented him from killing again (which I fully believe he would have.). 

I agree we need laws, law enforcement, and teeth.