Places like myspace and vf have thousands of people talking about how they love guns, how they love violence, how they hate society, how they’re depressed and suicidal.

How do you filter out those who just talk about it from those who are capable of actually doing it?

If you do find someone you think is capable of doing something like this, what then? Should they be arrested for what they wrote? Should they be forced to seek therapy? What can we do to stop people like this taking that last fatal step?

Lambic — thanks for posting and being here. (Side note: how come you don’t have any contact information on your blog? I wanted to touch base awhile ago and couldn’t find it!)

All your questions are good ones. Perhaps it’s simply too much of a needle in a haystack, and I’ll be the first to admit, “you can’t really do much about these sorts of crimes.” Certainly I don’t think you can beef up security at schools and public places to the point where you can stop someone crazy enough to do what this guy did yesterday.

Still, technology is used to spy on people all the time. It’s not perfect or fullproof but can it work to some degree? Could the pictures of this guy’s guns have been a red-flag to say, “are they real, and if so where’d he get them?”

There’s an email address elsewhere on my site. I used to have one on the blog but I think it got eaten when I changed theme. I’ll put it back at some point.

According to the CBC this morning all his guns were registered (I didn’t even know you could register an AK47…), so there’s nothing inherently illegal about his photos, although seeing him dressed like Neo and aiming at the camera is certainly a potential red flag.

This is lazy solutionism.

The patroling of blogs may very well be the most laughable suggestion in our blame-syphon media age.

For one: blogs are in no way linked to the truth. For all we know, this guy's blog could have been self-mocking, ironic, or otherwise fictional; there are people who run blogs under various aspects of their lives–fictional accounts of fictional lives.

Fort two: it's not the job of complete strangers to judge whether or not a person on the internet is unstable. That is the job of people the person is in contact with in the real world; his parents, friends, family, faculty at the school. If they were suspicious of his actions, then they could do something about it.

For three: there is no way to profile murderers. No scientific, psychologically sound way to figure out who will snap and kill people. The spectrum is way too wide and out of control for that. Let's look at history: a brilliant law student? Surely not. But Ted Bundy killed many, many women. And he was a certifiable genius whose many friends refused to believe he was behind his killings even after he had admitted.

So as you're on patrol and find a 'troubled' person (and I'm sure the host of this guy's blog, 'Vampire Freaks' is full of 'troubled' people, which is to say goths. More useless profiling), chances are you're mis-labeling the person and missing the actually psychotic people.

Useless speculation.

Colin — thanks for being part of the discussion.

I love the term “lazy solutionism.”

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

1. Blogs aren't linked to truth. Ok, I could put up a blog as a total farce of people wanting to commit suicide, die in a hail of bullets and slaughter innocent people…but do I? No. I would guess that most blogs ARE seeded in truth. Maybe not 100% true, but you can't look at that guy's site and say, “Ah, he's just joking around.”

I think there's more truth in the blogosphere than you're admitting to. Yes, I can put up a fake site and pretend to be a woman looking for one-legged, rich men, but I'd say that's a fairly small percentage of the blogosphere.

2. It's not the job of strangers to judge others on the Internet. I agree that the people around us need to be the ones to recognize signs of trouble, concern, etc. There's no question there…but…as a society I don't think we should just toss over the work/blame to others. We all live in the society together.

And I'm not talking about judging, I'm talking about raising flags that could be examined. I realize the ramifications of this in terms of stereotyping goths or other sub-cultures, but to me it's not about blame, it's about finding the needle in the haystack, wherever it might be.

3. Useless speculation. I don't know if any discussion is really useless speculation. The answer very well may be, “We can't do anything about it, so that's that.” But that sounds to me like rolling over and giving up. It also sounds like “lazy solutionism” if I may use your term. *smile*

Thanks for commenting Colin, I appreciate it!

If his weapons were all registered, then the registry is an abject failure.

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

Lambic – I’ve got your email now! Muhahaha. You can expect something soon (hopefully!)

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!

I'm curious about the cafeteria selected and whether that might reflect a partial motive?

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

Colin — thanks for being part of the discussion.

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.

Colin — thanks for being part of the discussion.

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.

Colin,

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.