This made me a little sick.

[ampersand]

I can't be the only one whose first thought was, "Maybe he should have quit while he was ahead."

I know, I know. Bad pun.

Seriously though, as I've learned about the counseling and psychiatric sides of working in a charity, I've gotten a sense of how slowly rehabilitation seems to happen for many of various case worker's clients. I wonder if the original thoughts were a combination given the length of time it might take to fully rehabilitate incarcerated persons, it would be simply less expensive to simply house them than, rehabilitation processes are not as effective (or not effective enough to justify continuing it as a general law/policy) as oppose to simply leaving them in jail, and this desire to seek as complete and total satisfaction to the victims (or victim's families) of these crimes where the victims generally aren't interested in rehabilitating the person going to jail, they simply want them out of their lives as much as possible. I would almost wager that the consensus of this psychopath's victim's relatives is they do not want him merely put into a mental institution to hope that he is reformed, but to be locked up as long as humanly possible or put on death row and executed for these crimes if it's possible.

[StruckingFuggle]

By the way, rehabilitation isn't inevitable. It's fully possible that it might result in him being locked up for the rest of his life.

[Martin Blank]

Yes, yes I would. I don't feel that the security at a mental hospital would be sufficient and I think that accommodations could be made to get psychiatric visits/solitary confinement for protection/whatever else is necessary while he is serving time for the crime that he did commit.

Have you ever been in a real mental facility, particularly one intended to treat those who have been judged to be legally insane? They're not hospitals where everyone wanders around freely. All actions are strictly controlled, dangerous patients are essentially in solitary confinement, and medication is forced, if necessary.

Your choice of putting them in prison puts unpredictable people in an environment that is subject to high stress and rapid change, which endangers guards and inmates, neither of whom has the training to deal with such people.

[Deacon]

You know what makes ME sick about this whole news story? That nobody even tried stopped him. That nobody even tried to help the victim when he was being attacked. Not even in a post-9/11 world where theoretically everyone was all of a sudden going to be braver and stand up to head-fucked loons like this. An entire bus, and yet nothing. Not their problem, I guess. I wonder how they'd feel if THEY were the ones unlucky enough to be sitting next to the guy that day, or if it were THEIR family member who'd been left to be tortured to death by docile sheeple who've been led to believe that you should never fight back.

It's a good thing this is Canada so no other law-abiding citizen could easily be carrying a concealed firearm in order to stop this guy. I wonder how many charges they would've had to endure for doing so and saving that man's life.

[StruckingFuggle]

On the one hand, up to the last bit, I agree with you, broadly. It makes me sad, and deepens my contempt for people - because it's nothing special and something very human - but I guess I'm too sick of it to be sick. Eh. But at the same time, "docile sheeple who've been led to believe that you should never fight back"... I'm not going to bother with the futile effort of trying to educate you, but it's really not that simple.

But even if it had been in the US, even if it'd been in Texas, what are the odds, even, that someone would have had a gun? Capability is not a mandate.

[collegestudent22]

But at the same time, "docile sheeple who've been led to believe that you should never fight back"... I'm not going to bother with the futile effort of trying to educate you, but it's really not that simple.

And that couldn't be because they are led to believe that fighting back is wrong? I mean, look at it this way, there are Good Samaritan laws that require people to provide help to others, should they be choking, unable to breathe, etc. However, if something goes wrong when giving CPR, for instance, you can be sued. I'd call that a lose-lose situation. Given that choice, why would I want to help, when someone else can do it instead and put themselves in that situation.

Someone should take charge the minute that they realize that no one else is. That is the point.

But even if it had been in the US, even if it'd been in Texas, what are the odds, even, that someone would have had a gun? Capability is not a mandate.

It wouldn't be a given, but why should that stop us? Why diminish the chances just because the chances aren't going to be 100%?

[tnitnetny]

I am not sure where I read it (I will try to find it) that a few guys actually started to try to help the person getting stabbed (while others were exiting the bus) until the guy turned on them and started hacking at them with the knife. At that point, their first instinct was to get everyone off the bus and out of harms way. Once everyone was off, they went back on the bus and the guy had already decapitated the person. That is when they decided to lock him in the bus.

[collegestudent22]

Even so, if those trying to help had a gun.... Bang. Crisis averted. Get the injured man and his stab wounds to a hospital and everyone is better off.

[StruckingFuggle]

Even so, if those trying to help had a gun.... Bang. Crisis averted. Get the injured man and his stab wounds to a hospital and everyone is better off.

Emphasis upon an important and oft-glossed over point that's usually taken for granted as a stipulated assumption in these "discussions".

Also, why is it that when there's a tragedy with guns, the people who who speak ill of firearms in any context are villains lambasted for trying to mine political capital from a tragedy, but when people are mining political capital from a tragedy to support guns, no one really makes issue of politicizing it?

[adciv]

I've heard lambasting go both ways. Although I've heard a bit more towards the ban all guns crowd. I think it has to do with how coarse/loud/obnoxious that group is.