Thanks for the thoughtful comments. There's a lot to chew on there and a lot to discuss.

I don't know where the answer lies, except to know that there's no simple answer and maybe no answer at all.

As someone in technology I still think technology could help, but it's a people problem not a technology problem…

As for guns, I see no real need for them myself. I'm not a pacifist but I agree – rocket propelled grenades aren't really useful for hunting bunny rabbits.

It sounds like this guy's guns were legit, which means that at least 3 people had to sign statements saying he was fit to carry guns. I'd like to have a word with those 3 people…

Thanks again for participating here.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. There’s a lot to chew on there and a lot to discuss.

I don’t know where the answer lies, except to know that there’s no simple answer and maybe no answer at all.

As someone in technology I still think technology could help, but it’s a people problem not a technology problem…

As for guns, I see no real need for them myself. I’m not a pacifist but I agree – rocket propelled grenades aren’t really useful for hunting bunny rabbits.

It sounds like this guy’s guns were legit, which means that at least 3 people had to sign statements saying he was fit to carry guns. I’d like to have a word with those 3 people…

Thanks again for participating here.

I love the term “lazy solutionism.”

Maybe patrolling blogs is laughable, but I’m not sure I agree 100% with your comments.
Ben;

I agree with you: blogs are, for the most part, run by serious and truthful individuals; my point is that one has to be skeptic when it comes to believing in threats and suicidal tendencies on public operated sites; if we were to believe everything, then all the horrible poets on Deviant Art would be under constant surveilance (which, really, sounds perfectly fine to me; one can only take so much god-awful 'poetry').

I'll also agree to a need for everyone to look out for everything but, based on the above problem with sites (especially blogs on Vampire Freaks; honestly, you can probably find countless entries about wanting to hurt oneself and others on a site specifically designed for the teenage goth, a subculture that prides itself on its dark and disdainful nature). But when it comes to something like this (which, let's be honest, is way too big an action to pin to a blog; he might mention it in passing, but I'm certain he didn't go into details and plans), I think the issue of reaching out to an individual lies in the hands of someone who can see his actual actions.

I'm not alluding to the blame of others, just that, with the constant and steady stream of blogs and data online, it is impossible to monitor and take accountability from where we, the general, non-related public, sit.

'Needle in a Haystack' is a good term for it, but I think it's still a bit too small of a frame of reference; it's more like finding a specific fish in an the ocean. There's no possible way to monitor the internet in such a way that we can raise flags about troubling sites–especially given the consideration that the governments (especially the U.S. government; I'm unsure of the Canadian gov) give the internet at all: misunderstanding the scope and nature. I, frankly, don't think it's possible for a government to put such an agency in place–not without severely limiting the flow of knowledge and hindering our internet freedom, anyway.

I'm also a fan of the termage 'lazy solutionism'; given how much of world affairs are taken as black or white, it's especially useful here. What I'm writing about isn't apathy, by any means–what I'd rather see happen is a sort of ongoing group awareness of the reality and possibility of what can happen.

I realize that, as a teenager, I wasn't the most cooperative person in the world; relating to teenagers (and early post-teenagers) is a hard thing to do–but not outside the ability of family, faculty, and student body members. If anyone could have seen this coming, it wouldn't have been the guy's online buddies. It would have been his parents, teachers, and friends.

I already said it's impossible to profile murderers, but it isn't impossible to spot troubled people; depression and (highly) anti-social behavior is easily evident among people. . . and I speak of this from experience. . .

It might be that people would only note that he was depressed or troubled, but such a note would have begun the motion of uncovering how troubled he actually was.

On one side of the argument, there's the banising of 'violent video games', on the other there's the policing of the internet. Surely, somewhere in-between, there is a rational, people-based solution. Awareness, let's say, without straying into either problematic, Patriot Act profiling or the depletion of human rights.

Also, I can't help but point out the irony of the lack of gun control based solely on a confused irony, all within the comments of an article that asks if police should monitor the blogosphere.

Gun control: if only such things worked out better. I live in the States (in Wyoming, no less), and everyone over a certain age owns a gun. And it bothers the hell out of me: I really doubt you need a gun capable of launching explosives for hunting.

I also sort of feel that, in all honesty, guns aren't needed to protect the home: your TV or someone's life? Let 'em have the TV.

I love the term “lazy solutionism.”

Maybe patrolling blogs is laughable, but I’m not sure I agree 100% with your comments.
Ben;

I agree with you: blogs are, for the most part, run by serious and truthful individuals; my point is that one has to be skeptic when it comes to believing in threats and suicidal tendencies on public operated sites; if we were to believe everything, then all the horrible poets on Deviant Art would be under constant surveilance (which, really, sounds perfectly fine to me; one can only take so much god-awful ‘poetry’).

I’ll also agree to a need for everyone to look out for everything but, based on the above problem with sites (especially blogs on Vampire Freaks; honestly, you can probably find countless entries about wanting to hurt oneself and others on a site specifically designed for the teenage goth, a subculture that prides itself on its dark and disdainful nature). But when it comes to something like this (which, let’s be honest, is way too big an action to pin to a blog; he might mention it in passing, but I’m certain he didn’t go into details and plans), I think the issue of reaching out to an individual lies in the hands of someone who can see his actual actions.

I’m not alluding to the blame of others, just that, with the constant and steady stream of blogs and data online, it is impossible to monitor and take accountability from where we, the general, non-related public, sit.

‘Needle in a Haystack’ is a good term for it, but I think it’s still a bit too small of a frame of reference; it’s more like finding a specific fish in an the ocean. There’s no possible way to monitor the internet in such a way that we can raise flags about troubling sites–especially given the consideration that the governments (especially the U.S. government; I’m unsure of the Canadian gov) give the internet at all: misunderstanding the scope and nature. I, frankly, don’t think it’s possible for a government to put such an agency in place–not without severely limiting the flow of knowledge and hindering our internet freedom, anyway.

I’m also a fan of the termage ‘lazy solutionism’; given how much of world affairs are taken as black or white, it’s especially useful here. What I’m writing about isn’t apathy, by any means–what I’d rather see happen is a sort of ongoing group awareness of the reality and possibility of what can happen.

I realize that, as a teenager, I wasn’t the most cooperative person in the world; relating to teenagers (and early post-teenagers) is a hard thing to do–but not outside the ability of family, faculty, and student body members. If anyone could have seen this coming, it wouldn’t have been the guy’s online buddies. It would have been his parents, teachers, and friends.

I already said it’s impossible to profile murderers, but it isn’t impossible to spot troubled people; depression and (highly) anti-social behavior is easily evident among people. . . and I speak of this from experience. . .

It might be that people would only note that he was depressed or troubled, but such a note would have begun the motion of uncovering how troubled he actually was.

On one side of the argument, there’s the banising of ‘violent video games’, on the other there’s the policing of the internet. Surely, somewhere in-between, there is a rational, people-based solution. Awareness, let’s say, without straying into either problematic, Patriot Act profiling or the depletion of human rights.

Also, I can’t help but point out the irony of the lack of gun control based solely on a confused irony, all within the comments of an article that asks if police should monitor the blogosphere.

Gun control: if only such things worked out better. I live in the States (in Wyoming, no less), and everyone over a certain age owns a gun. And it bothers the hell out of me: I really doubt you need a gun capable of launching explosives for hunting.

I also sort of feel that, in all honesty, guns aren’t needed to protect the home: your TV or someone’s life? Let ‘em have the TV.

Jonas — I'd agree that the gun registry has been a failure. Asking government to monitor everything…well, we know how the government is. Big, confused and spending our tax dollars on stuff that I wish they wouldn't. And I'm not being partisan — I'm talking about all governments.

And I don't know the answer to your question, but it seems to me that some people should just not have the right to guns at all. How hard can it be to look at someone and say, “Um, no. You don't need a machine gun to kill ducks in downtown Montreal.”

Jim — I don't know what the significant is about Dawson. I'd venture to say the guy went to school there, and had some beef there, but I haven't followed the news during the day, we'll have to wait and see what comes out.

Thanks to everyone for commenting!

What is the relevant Dawson cafeteria's official name and what was its nickname?

Can the government take away your guns if they believe that you are going to use them illegally?

Jonas — I’d agree that the gun registry has been a failure. Asking government to monitor everything…well, we know how the government is. Big, confused and spending our tax dollars on stuff that I wish they wouldn’t. And I’m not being partisan — I’m talking about all governments.

And I don’t know the answer to your question, but it seems to me that some people should just not have the right to guns at all. How hard can it be to look at someone and say, “Um, no. You don’t need a machine gun to kill ducks in downtown Montreal.”

Jim — I don’t know what the significant is about Dawson. I’d venture to say the guy went to school there, and had some beef there, but I haven’t followed the news during the day, we’ll have to wait and see what comes out.

Thanks to everyone for commenting!