Those are not useful study materials

PZ, Ivy leaguers are so much better. They pay big bucks for their ivy credentials and have very expensive and powerful lawyers. Of course, all of it is normal.

Bushies 1 & 2, Lieberman, Kerry, Bill and Hillary, are all yuppies and Yalies in one form or another. They have big guns. It's part of the style. Boola, boola, we've got the mazoola.

I'm a gun owner and yes, a bit out of the norm there. I specifically remember there being a no-firearms policy on campus at both of the Universities I attended. Not sure what the rules are on Frat property if it is not on campus. Either way, they weren't registered so....

Sorry I blew an Italics tag up there.

Another student, who had stayed at the house for a few days before moving into University housing, said he once saw Light carrying two large firearms up the stairs inside the house, and another time saw a "serious-looking" high-powered rifle at the fraternity, which he thought was suspicious.

Suspicious? You'd think that college kids would be a little more alarmed about guns in a university setting after the school massacres of late. I think I might have called in a SWAT team instead of scratching my perma-stoned, perma-drunk head saying "Gee. That looks suspicious... Meh! Whatever. Pass the bong."

Can we all just agree right up front that keeping an arsenal of lethal weapons in your room at college is not normal? It might be normal in Baghdad, but not New Haven, Connecticut.

Oh, I don't know. My girlfriend went to Yale and utterly hated it. Maybe it was just this guy's way of coping...

Wow. I'm a little bit shocked by all this. I TAed a course that David took during the Spring semester. He always seemed like a pretty normal guy, actually more down-to-earth than many students I have taught. I guess this stuff always happens where it's least expected.

What's with the bottle of mercury? Assault weapons aren't good enough, anymore? Or was he, as an ivy league student, just trying to out-do his redneck counterparts?

IIRC, mercury is used in various explosives, in pyrotechnics, and The Day Of The Jackal describes how to use it in making explosive bullets.

It does give me reason for concern

I was going to say that it's time for gunboy to enlist, but then I thought, maybe a weapon-loving guy like David is the wrong kind of person to have in the army, and then I thought - well, who does belong in the military? Does anyone?

We need to end this war.

Sounds like David should seek employment with the Blackwater Mercenaries.

What's with the bottle of mercury?

In the context of the guns, I would say the guy was planning on making his own frangible bullets, which would definitely indicate that he was trying to kill and maim people, not take his .50 cal out for a little bit of skeet shooting.

It might be normal in Baghdad, but not New Haven, Connecticut.

Just more proof that liberal professors like PZ are trying to take our guns away. I bet he doesn't even believe in God!

..

lends new meaning to "we bombed in new haven."

As for the mercury, the most realistic application I can think of in a violent format is the production of mercury fulminate. It is a shock sensitive material that has been the heart of percussion caps for almost the past two centuries.

Instructions for production are out there, but don't do it because it involves mercury at the least and Luna at the worst.

Oh I dunno... I went to UC Berkeley back in the late 70's. I lived 2 blocks from campus (Milvia Street) and I had a list of firearms not unlike this guy. I didn't have a .50 Cal though. I even used to go shoot on campus. There was a small-bore rifle range in the basement of the (then) Women's Gym. I got to be a pretty good shot.

The difference for me was I lived in Berkeley. I graduated from high school there. My gun collection was something that I kept at home unless I went to the range... and then it was only the weapons I was going to use at the range. Seems a little odd that someone would want to keep a .50 Cal around the frat house. Unless it was a black powder rifle I doubt that there is anywhere in or around Yale (or in the whole state) that one can safely fire such a rifle, too populated.

Only (reasonable?) reason I could see that he might want to have the AR-15 is if he was a match shooter. If he claims he needs it for defense then the 12 Ga shotgun would be enough for that.

As far as bomb making equipment they are kinda sparse on the details. He may have reloaded his own cartridges (as did I) and had some cannisters of smokeless powder. The news often interprets 'powder' as 'bomb making equipment.'

All that said... in light of recent news this person showed poor judgement in having all that stuff around in his frat house. He showed contempt for the laws of the state by not having the correct permits. He showed incredibly reckless behaviour by the act of firing a weapon inside a building where people live. For all those reasons he should have his weapons confiscated, be brought up on charges (and do time if convicted), have his permits in his home state revoked, and be required to take some counselling.

-DU-

He is at an age when psychosis typically becomes manifest for the first time.

How does an obviously bright young man, presumably from at least a middle class background, do something so bizarre and at odds with normal social behavior?

The rational explanation seems to be an unfortunate descent into mental illness. My guess is he had begun exhibiting early signs of psychosis by feeding an apparent compulsion to collect and display dangerous weapons, that worsened progressively to the point where he lost social inhibition and discharged the weapons, not in a firing range, but in a residence, where he threatened bodily harm to an observer.

PZ Myers runs a popular blog championing the cause of science and earns his reputation pointing out and making fun of 'kooks'. My bet, in this instance, is that (fairly common) mental illness will be proven eventually to explain this young mans shocking behavior.

CalGeorge,

Yes, there are people who belong in the Army. I challenge you to imagine living in the richest nation in the world and NOT having a military - for a practical experiment, hang $100 bills out of your pockets and walk around inner-city alleys at midnight. I'll even loan you $100 if I have a guarantee you'll perform the experiment.
That being said, you're right. Mr. Light does not sound like the sort of guy we want to enlist. Being a Soldier is rough enough on a person's mental state without picking somebody already unstable. And I also agree that this war is not accomplishing anything for us. Be sure and tell your politicians - you know, the guys in civilian clothes who determine the military's missions?

While this guy obviously seems "non-normal," (shooting inside your own home is not normal, and his selection of weapons was unusual), I cannot agree with the poorly phrased statement that "keeping an arsenal of lethal weapons in the home is not normal." All guns are lethal, and it's not abnormal--in the U.S.--to have a small arsenal of them (I don't, but a number of my friends do).

Further, if the point is about "lethal weapons" in general, then even my house contains a good number of items that would fit the legal definition of assault with a deadly weapon if I attacked someone with them. Kitchen knives, scissors, baseball bats, canoe paddles, 2 x 4s, chairs.

While, again, I agree this guy is abnormal, the closing comment was not well considered.

Have you ever tried to drive through New Haven? It's a frustrating endeavor, and I sure hope my fellow frustrated motorists aren't packing like this guy...

BobApril:

hang $100 bills out of your pockets and walk around inner-city alleys at midnight.

Was this intended as an accurate characterisation of US foreign policy?

I cannot agree with the poorly phrased statement that "keeping an arsenal of lethal weapons in the home is not normal."

Who made this statement? As far as I can see, our host said:

Can we all just agree right up front that keeping an arsenal of lethal weapons in your room at college is not normal?

Did you misread the statement? A college dorm living situation is not the same as living in a private residence. Also, although I understand the implication that a number of items commonly used for other purposes can be called lethal weapons, and will admit to having had a vicious set of jagged-edge weapons in my dorm room while at college (yes, I had a summer job selling CutCo knives), it hardly compares to an arsenal of firearms.

I occasionally see this comparison made elsewhere, and I really think it is disingenuous to compare firearms to cooking utensils, unless you're doing the Homer Simpson thing and opening your beer by shooting the top off the can.

Dear Yanks,

Please get rid of the guns, the majority of the rest of the first world seems to manage relatively well without them.

Louis

Does anybody know if he was actually firing blanks? Most of the articles include him claiming that he was with no contradictory statements. If he was, it was still a stupid thing to do, but a bit different from firing bullets in an occupied area.

PZ: Have you ever been to New Haven? :^O

"Can we all just agree right up front that keeping an arsenal of lethal weapons in your room at college is not normal?"

Mostly, but not entirely. There are a few situations where it could be all right. A collection of weapons is not abnormal. If his relationship with his family is not such that he can trust them with that collection, it would be irresponsible to leave them behind. That means he would have to take them to college, or sell them. Would there have been a problem if they where stored in a gun safe, or stashed away with appropriate trigger locks? If that had been the case, I suspect it wouldn't be on the news.

What I think we *can* all agree on, however, is that guns come with an implicit "for outdoor use only" warning.

On the other hand, in certain situations, even this rule has exceptions -- firing blanks in a theater production, for instance. From the article posted, he was in fact firing blanks. However, this is not theater:

"A visitor at Beta asked him to stop, but Light told him he was only firing blanks, and added, when pressed, "Why don't I point it at your head to find out?""

Threatening someone with a firearm is a very serious offense. Up until then, things could still be acceptable. Owning weapons, firing blanks indoors, an interest in pyrotechnics, these are all potential red flags but they could also be legitimate activities. Threatening someone with a weapon is not, and shows those flags are indeed symptoms and warnings, not hobbies.

"even my house contains a good number of items that would fit the legal definition of assault with a deadly weapon if I attacked someone with them"

Whenever someone makes the case that knives, scissors, and chairs(?) are potentially lethal and so are comparable to guns, I think of a little test.

You and I could each agree to head down to a local elementary school and hand out 'lethal' weapons to a couple classes of eight-year-old kids. You give the kids in your classroom a couple of loaded guns, and I'll bring a few chairs for the kids in mine. We'll sit there and tell the kids to do as they please, you in your classroom and me in mine. I imagine I'd feel fairly comfortable. How about you?

The point is that guns require little to no effort on the part of the user to become lethal, and there's not much a bystander can do if some wingnut gets a little trigger happy. I'm not so much concerned about a lunatic loose at a mall with pinking shears.

As far as this fellow goes, well isn't 'crazy' pretty well defined by the behaviour? If someone shooting his guns into the ceiling of his dorm and pointing them at visitors doesn't make him unstable, then what the hell does?

Having said that, I think Blader's probably nailed the situation with this kid. I hope he gets whatever help he probably needs.

Louis is right.

MarkW:
Was this intended as an accurate characterisation of US foreign policy?

Nope. it was intended as a very rough analogy to the likely lifespan of a rich country without adequate defense. Along with wishful thinking regarding the appropriate response for anyone who seems to equate "military" with "mindless, baby-killing robots," or who disparages the need for the military simply because they disapprove of the current missions assigned to it.

And now I'll shut up because this is clearly off-topic. If you wish, I can be contacted via the link on my name.

I can see one situation in which possessing a large number of guns in one's college dorm would be somewhat explicable, if not at all intelligent. My bet would be that the kid's dealing drugs.

"What I think we *can* all agree on, however, is that guns come with an implicit "for outdoor use only" warning."

I think the .50 would turn the inside into the outside real quick. You really only need one for stopping cars or aircraft.

I'm currently a grad student at Yale and while you may not need assault rifles near campus, there are plenty of places in New Haven that I wouldn't want to be without one. That said, there is no reason for this kid to have such weaponry in his dorm room.

"[...]he was trying to kill and maim people[...]"
That's the point in the discussion where I'd say "Stop. No."
This is like saying "Having chemistry glassware in your dorm room is proof that you wanted to manufacture methamphetamine."
It seems plausible to me that he may have just wanted to see if he COULD make mercury fulminate or other related materials. Just part of the whole "look at me, ain't I a badass?" attitude that such a large collection of "big guns" weapons implies to me. No need to invoke "and he's going to go on a shooting rampage!" speculation at all.
Still...I can't say I don't agree that the kid's behavior implies that he's just plain too irresponsible to be trusted with that kind of stuff. Never mind murderous insanity, I'd be worried about "oops, I forgot I had live ammo in that one. Sorry about killing that guy like that. Oops."

Eh... one of my housemates has a closet full of solid fuel rocket chemicals, enough to make enough thermite or anfo to blow up our house at least and the other one has 4 handguns, a .306 and a shotgun, it's not what i'd call out of the ordinary, some people just collect guns, and some people like blowing stuff up (and honestly what nerd isn't a little bit of a pyro). sometimes people like both, that said we live in a house in town, not on campus (though honestly i don't think it would be any difference if we did).

lends new meaning to "we bombed in new haven."

And hopefully keeps the phrase "blood on the streets of New Haven" out of the news.

Think this guy might be Skull and Bones?

I went to school in Kennesaw, Georgia, where local regulations require every household to keep a firearm for home defense. (Crime is way low there, even though the law is rarely enforced.) I had a (legal) gun then, I have two now, but if I knew this guy when I was in school, I'd have been scared spitless.

It's not that he had a gun. It's not even that he had a gun collection. It's that he had them gathered together in his dorm room, the f*cking moron, like any clueless idiot who can't muster a brain cell to think, "hmm, who has access to this room (via connecting bathroom, skeleton key, tookbox, or sleeping with my roommate)?".

My best friend had an absolutely beautiful knife and sword collection, but he lived off campus in a home his parents owned, kept the bulk of his collection locked in a chest, insured the entire collection and the home, and was obsessive about who he let touch the blades. That's responsibility.

s/b "toolbox", but you probably already figured that out.

Even if the guy was firing blanks, blanks are still dangerous. They do not eject a bullet, but they do eject a high velocity plume of hot air which can be dangerous, even lethal at close range, not to mention gun powder ejecta that can cause eye injury. And if he was shooting them indoors, that means potential human beings that might be in his path are at close range.

And of course, there is no excuse at all for pointing a gun at someone and saying "let's find out."

Like with airport security screening and their "if you joke about a bomb, we treat it as a bomb" policy, this is a situation where there ought to be no room allowed for mitigating factors.

I mean, what parent would even for a second be reassured with, "Sure, he has many assault weapons in his dorm room, but it's OK, he's a good kid."? No, you bring weapons like that into a dorm situation, we treat you like you intend to use them on people. Particularly given recent history, anything less than that is just foolish.

AL, you may recall that Jon-Erik Hexum, a young actor in the early 1980s, died by holding a handgun loaded with blanks to his temple and pulling the trigger.

Apparently, he was unaware of the dangers of blanks.

hmm, who has access to this room (via connecting bathroom, skeleton key, tookbox, or sleeping with my roommate)?".

That's exactly what I thought. Regardless of one's stance on keeping guns in the home, a dorm room is entirely unsecurable, almost by definition. Far too many people can have access to the room, most of whom you don't know about. Don't forget last year's inhabitant, his or her boyfriends/girlfriends, former RAs, the list goes on and on.

BobApril wrote:

I challenge you to imagine living in the richest nation in the world and NOT having a military - for a practical experiment, hang $100 bills out of your pockets and walk around inner-city alleys at midnight.

Bob, you might want to rethink this statement. Whatever happens in an inner-city alley with your $100 dollar bill is not a military problem. That's a police matter. (Hint: look up posse comitatus.) The inner city alley experiment is a bad analogy for what the US would be like without a strong Army.

my house contains a good number of items that would fit the legal definition of assault with a deadly weapon if I attacked someone with them. Kitchen knives, scissors, baseball bats, canoe paddles, 2 x 4s, chairs

When was the last time you read about a drive-by knifing?

Yale's admission policy seems to be atypically effective at selecting students who are psychologically disturbed. Examples extend from the current resident of the White House, down the power pyramid through the CIA covert action ("which democracy shall we overthrow today?") wing, and ultimately down to idiots like this who keep arsenals in their dorm rooms. Someone should do a study on why Yale get so many of these kind of people.

"Can we all just agree right up front that keeping an arsenal of lethal weapons in your room at college is not normal?"

I would suggest that firing an arsenal of lethal weapons in your room at college is not normal. Some of us college students like to go to the range every now and then, but don't have more than one room in which to keep our possessions (lethal weapons included).

Fraternity house, not dormitory. I believe the former is considered private property.
I would guess that the fratboys at Yale are probably even more white, wealthy, entitled, and arrogant than the ones I knew at Moo U (little poem there), and probably equally drunkophilic...making this guy even more scary.

When was the last time you read about a drive-by knifing?

That, no, but I've heard of someone's head getting split open with a drive-by baseball bat.

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

Emotion in Reading
The meaning of the Second Amendment becomes quite clear if one removes the emotional "gun" issue. Let's restate the 2nd in another context:

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

If this were the law, would only educated people have the right to keep books? Or, would only the voting electorate be allowed to read? Of course not. All the people would have the right to keep and read books, and the state would benefit by having a more educated electorate.

There is NO requirement to be a member of a Militia to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. However, the more people who DO, the better the security of the state.
Gary Possert, Lancaster, CA

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

Once you get past the hysterical screeching, this "aresenal" doesn't sound all that uncommon to me. Assuming they're talking about a .50 cal BMG, it's just a big bolt-action rifle (I'm sure they would have mentioned if it were the "scarier" semi-auto design). An AR-15 (despite the meaningless "assualt weapon" appellation) is just a semi-automatic rifle no different in its operation than a thousand other semi-autos. The M91 is a positively ancient Russian bolt-action weapon, the "91" standing for 1891. If it's an actual M91 and not (as is much more likely) an M91/30, the ATF doesn't even consider it a firearm. Some nondescript pistols and a shotgun? So what?

I also predict that the "bomb-making material" will turn out to be re-loading stuff.

pffft, you should see the "arsenal" I have in my room. Puts that to shame. But I wouldn't be caught dead taking it into a no guns zone where they could be confiscated and I could be thrown into a cage for equipping me to defend myself.