I just read an article this morning online about a group teens in Oklahoma who randomly shot and killed an Australian collage student and claim they did it "for the fun of it". All I can think of is, what is wrong with these kids? 

"...Charged with first-degree murder are Chancey Allen Luna, 16, and James Francis Edwards Jr., 15, according to the Stephens County District Attorney's office. Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, who allegedly drove the vehicle carrying the other suspects, was charged with use of a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and accessory to murder after the fact, the office said..."

"...Lane was out jogging during a visit to his girlfriend and her family in Duncan on Friday, when he was shot in the back, police said. He attended East Central University in Ada, Oklahoma, where he was on a baseball scholarship.

What drives a person (even the most immature teenager) to think that killing someone is funny? Or that its acceptable to kill for fun? From a psychological viewpoint, what causes a persons train of thought to resort to killing for fun?

Full article here

Views: 583

Tags: control, gun, guns, killing, murder, psychology

Comment by Unseen on August 23, 2013 at 8:12pm

It is now being said (alleged) that the shootings were a gang initiation.

Comment by Unseen on August 23, 2013 at 8:28pm

What has changed over the last few decades has less to do with violence and much more to do with media. Marshall McCluhan's global village means that Nina and her ilk have been seeing more and more of America's dirty laundry as time goes by, perhaps leaving the false impression that things are getting worse when, actually, they are getting better.

For us Americans, with CNN, FOX, and the major networks' news departments beating every major crime to death, it can seem the same to us.

The Netherlands and the rest of Europe have plenty of their own issues, many of them related to their immigration policies and pie-in-the-sky ideas about tolerance between diverse cultures. Maybe not guns, but racism and sexism and the chance that a few of their nations will be Islamic in a few generations should be at the top off their menu of problems.

Comment by Kairan Nierde on August 23, 2013 at 11:33pm

This reminds me of that snuff video, "Hammer," in which those teenage boys in some part of Eastern Europe or Russia bludgeoned some poor passerby to death with a hammer. I was lucky enough to google the video instead of haplessly clicking on it and watching it. If I remember correctly, their motive was pleasure/enjoyment/fun...which is why they kept their recording. I lost a little part of my metaphorical soul when I learned about those boys.

The more I learn about humanity, the less these things shock me.

Comment by H3xx on August 24, 2013 at 2:46am

@Ed

If you're saying there is a direct correlation to being raised by a gun toting republican and, as a result, having a propensity for committing murder by firearm I would have to call that utter bullshit. I was raised conservatively and have had access to firearms my entire lifetime and never once had a real urge to "pop a cap" into a stranger's head. Registered gun owning tax paying citizens continue to statistically have a very respectable tract record when it comes to responsible gun ownership. These three perps should be tried as adults and sentenced accordingly. They'll make some homey on the inside a great bitch.

It isn't a direct correlation to being violent, but it is a direct correlation to being a gun toting republican as well. Children take after their parents more often than not.

The media bombards us with violence nearly every moment of every day, and that's fine. It doesn't bother most people. Most people are fine. We aren't talking about Most people, we're talking about those few who become unstable. Mental sickness is a very delicate situation. Anything can happen in the mind, even the simple thought, "It'd be kinda cool to kill someone. How about that Aussie Prick. I never liked him."

These are the kind of people who caused Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hooke. These people cracked, all for different reasons, but they cracked and turned to violence, all because they didn't get the help they needed. Sane people don't shoot people. Unstable people do. In Most states, there is no background check, or any kind of psychological test or screening, when it comes to purchasing guns, mainly because the NRA thinks that keeping guns out of the hands of psychotics is against the 2nd Amendment. An amendment that we wouldn't have or be able to feasibly keep without the First Amendment. If you can't speak out for yourself, then you're a crazed gunman.

Comment by SteveInCO on August 24, 2013 at 11:05am

Most states, there is no background check, or any kind of psychological test or screening, when it comes to purchasing guns, mainly because the NRA thinks that keeping guns out of the hands of psychotics is against the 2nd Amendment.

This is at least partially untrue.

If you purchase a firearm retail, you must, under federal law (Gun Control Act of 1968 if I am not mistaken, subsequently amended) certify in paper under penalty of perjury (the link is to the form you have to fill out) that you are not any of a variety of prohibited possessors (being adjudicated insane and having a felony conviction--even if it's a nonviolent felony for some victimless "crime" from decades ago--both make you prohibited.  It's illegal for these classes of people to own a firearm, under federal law).  You then have to have a background check done under federal law (the "Brady Act" passed in the mid 1990s).  Granted it's not as thorough as the sort of check you go through for a security clearance where they interview several people about you, but it is simply not true that there is no background check--at the retail level.  Your felony record will come into play.  Many states additionally require such a check done for private (used) gun sales as well, and/or at gun shows regardless of whether the seller is a federally licensed gun dealer.  Were it not for the fact that some states do not have this requirement, I'd not hesitate to call you completely full of shit on this, instead of just "partially untrue."

The NRA actually supported, and continues to support, this background check provided it is done speedily.  Their concern is that a woman being stalked by someone will need the gun quickly, and there have been cases where slower pre-Brady checks were being run when someone was killed.  But they also adamantly want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

You should perhaps pull your head out of your favorite progressive talking points lies website, do some of your own investigation and visit a gun store and express interest in buying a gun to see what is already required.

Comment by Unseen on August 24, 2013 at 11:41am

@Ed -   In Most states, there is no background check, or any kind of psychological test or screening, when it comes to purchasing guns, mainly because the NRA thinks that keeping guns out of the hands of psychotics is against the 2nd Amendment. 

I think a case can be made that rummaging through the mind of someone because they have expressed an interest in making a legal purchase violates the 4th Amendment protection against an unreasonable search.

Comment by archaeopteryx on August 24, 2013 at 11:56am

RE: "certify in paper under penalty of perjury" - not doubting your data, Steve, just the effectiveness of the law - any idea as to how often such perjury charges are pursued, and if any, the conviction rate? I have no conflicting data, I'm just curious, but I can't imagine any criminals lie awake nights worrying about it..

Comment by SteveInCO on August 24, 2013 at 12:07pm

Well the background check is a backup to the paper.

Rumor I have heard (so I could well be wrong) is that very rarely is someone prosecuted for lying on the paperwork when the background check is denied.  (But they don't walk out of there with a gun either, a Federal Firearms License holder won't risk major prison time (it's a felony) for that.)  Which would sort of put the lie to the idea that we'll catch criminals this way.  Many on the pro-firearms side of the debate even go so far as to maintain that the paperwork's real purpose is simply to harass the law-abidingm (especially if the instant check starts erroneously returning false denials) rather than to catch criminals.

Comment by Unseen on August 24, 2013 at 6:43pm

I think what background checks there are may be the reason why so many crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. 

Comment by H3xx on August 24, 2013 at 8:30pm

@SteveInCO

They look at your felony record, yes, but not at your mental state. The Aurora Shooter had no felonies, and purchased the firearms legally. He snapped and killed a bunch of people for apparently no reason. Had he been required to submit to a psych exam before hand, it's likely he wouldn't have gotten a gun at all.

As for Women seeking to protect themselves, The Taser company and Mace Company make some fine products for dealing with unwanted attention.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 40 Replies

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman 1 hour ago. 5 Replies

I don't know what to say

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Ward Cressin 6 hours ago. 2 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service