pageok
pageok
pageok
Bleg for Information about Two Very Bad People:

For a forthcoming academic encyclopedia on notorious people, I am writing the entires on George Hennard (perpetrator of the Luby's Cafeteria massacre in 1991) and on James Oliver Huberty (perpetrator of the 1984 massacre at a McDonald's in 1984). If you have suggestions for useful sources--particularly print-publications--on either of these evil men, please supply details in the comments.

James968 (mail):
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Oliver_Huberty
11.7.2005 7:26pm
Bruce:
Just a stab in the dark -- try the NY Times series on "Rampage Killers" a few years ago.
11.7.2005 7:28pm
Senor Chumbawumba:
They didn't let you do an entry on Notorious B.I.G.?
11.7.2005 7:36pm
DRJ (mail):
I would check for stories in the local newspapers for Belton, Killeen, Temple, and Waco, Texas. Also, the Houston Chronicle. Here's a Chronicle story from 10 years later: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/first100/1001214
11.7.2005 7:41pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Chris, that was my 1st thought---"Kopel posts on nothing but the 2d Amendment, so what on earth is he writing about these guys for?"

I will assume more charitably, however, that they are not "heroes," but rather cautionary tales. Had every adult in Luby's and McDonald's been packing, the death tolls would have been substantially lower?
11.7.2005 8:35pm
JonC:

Had every adult in Luby's and McDonald's been packing, the death tolls would have been substantially lower?


Actually, if only a single law-abiding adult in either place had been armed, the death toll probably would have been substantially lower.
11.7.2005 8:41pm
Patrick McKenzie (mail):
In terms of explaining the interest in the cases, and with the obligatory disclaimer that You Can't Trust Wiki (TM), this was in one of the above entries:

>>
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp's parents were among the 24 killed by Hennard in the attack. Hupp possessed a gun but left it in her car in compliance with laws against carrying a concealed weapon; she felt that, had her gun been on her person, she could have prevented the tragedy or limited the casualties. Hupp has since crusaded successfully for a concealed carry law and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.
>>
11.7.2005 8:47pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
My ability to channel the conservative mind never ceases to amaze me!
11.7.2005 9:01pm
Henry Schaffer (mail):
I just don't understand why the desire to be able to protect one's life and the life of others is "conservative", and why the opposite is "liberal".

It wasn't all that long ago that it was "conservative" to have total faith in the police to protect us all, and "liberal" to "distrust authority."

--henry schaffer
11.7.2005 9:39pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Oh, I'm teasing. Gun ownership &carrying is not one of my bugbears, though I don't see why a license can be required to drive a car but not to carry a gun.

("Because there is no constitutional right to drive." I think the 2d Amendment at most gets you the right to keep a gun at home &drill with it at your militia meeting, but not to carry one in your coat at the mall.)

Dems have hurt themselves by a knee-jerk anti-gun reflex, but the opposite extreme that virtually any regulation is pernicious, seems bad to me as well.
11.7.2005 10:06pm
pbswatcher (www):
There are no very bad people, only people we fail to understand, appreciate and allow to fit in.
11.7.2005 10:35pm
DRJ (mail):
Re: Hennard &Luby's. TexasMonthly magazine has also published articles on the Luby's shootings. The best way to access these articles is online at www.texasmonthly.com and search the back issues OR call the back issues department - they are very helpful. The last time I ordered, fees were $2.50 for reprints and $7.00 for back issues.
11.7.2005 11:02pm
Bob Christensen (mail):
"...though I don't see why a license can be required to drive a car but not to carry a gun."

Privelege vs. right. To an extent, liberty vs. responsibility.

The people in my neighborhood, city and state are safer because I do carry a gun in my coat to the mall... and everywhere else. My family is safer, but so also are the strangers who pass by on the sidewalk. All benefit from the demonstrably lower violent crime rate that attaches to my state because about 4% of the population choose to carry.

The debate really is over and the numbers support Heinlien's thought: an armed society (really) is a (more) polite (as well as safer) society.

Tomorrow's debate might well center on the alleged benefits to society of requiring some drivers to have drivers' licenses.
11.8.2005 12:08am
Andy Freeman (mail):
> Dems have hurt themselves by a knee-jerk anti-gun reflex, but the opposite extreme that virtually any regulation is pernicious, seems bad to me as well.

The "opposite extreme" is an untrue caricature.

I'm actually a vehement proponent of EFFECTIVE gun control for crime control purposes. The biggest obstacle is ineffective gun control. We can't try new things because the gun banners have poisoned the well with "we'll try it and if it doesn't work, we can get rid of it" and then not following through. In that, they can always rely on folks like Anderson.

BTW - Some of us have figured out that the car problems are mostly due to incompetence while the gun problems are rarely due to incompetence. Since no one uses car licensing to implement car bans ....
11.8.2005 10:21am
Greg (www):
>"perpetrator of the 1984 massacre at a McDonald's in 1984"

Really, the 1984 massacre occurred in 1984, eh? Not 1985?
[DK: Just making sure to distinguish the 1984 calendar year from the 1984 fiscal year, which ended on June 30, 1985. :) ]
11.8.2005 11:50am
James968 (mail):
Suzanna Hupp related this story to you directly at many public speeches. In fact, she was one of the movers in getting the Concealed Carry Permit passed in Texas. (So referencing her a key point. Had the event not happened, or she had not been there current law might be different in Texas)
11.8.2005 12:18pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
My article in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics which you can read here has citations to various print sources for information on both scum.
11.8.2005 1:01pm
Bleepless (mail):
Parenthetically, about 20 or so years ago, a short-lived Seattle rock group called Live Sex Acts on Stage came up with a song about Huberty entitled "Big Mac Attack." Ugh.
11.8.2005 2:43pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Freeman:In that, they can always rely on folks like Anderson.

Whatever are you talking about?

Christensen: Privelege vs. right. To an extent, liberty vs. responsibility.

I have a right to free speech, too, but that doesn't mean that it can't be regulated.

Christensen again: The people in my neighborhood, city and state are safer because I do carry a gun in my coat to the mall... and everywhere else.

I'm happy you think so, and sure you're right; but can we accept, on information &belief, that some people do NOT make the rest of us safer by carrying guns? And that, for instance, people with no training or experience in gun handling and safety would be in that group? And that a reasonable licensure procedure would help diminish the number of such, to say nothing of winnowing out felons convicted of violent crimes, etc.?

(Why a convicted perjurer should be prohibited from carrying a gun is another mystery.)
11.8.2005 4:59pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

And that a reasonable licensure procedure would help diminish the number of such, to say nothing of winnowing out felons convicted of violent crimes, etc.?
You mean, like the licensing requirement that nearly all states have for carrying a concealed handgun? All of them exclude convicted felons, and most prohibit licensing of people with recent misdemeanor violence convictions, commitments for mental illness, alcoholism, or drug abuse. Most have some safety training requirements (some pretty minimal, some quite substantial).
11.8.2005 5:31pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
> And that a reasonable licensure procedure would help diminish the number of such, to say nothing of winnowing out felons convicted of violent crimes, etc.?

Would it? Given that we actually have experience with such laws, it's interesting that Anderson is not citing supporting evidence.

We actually know quite a bit about who gets convicted of concealed carry violations. Perhaps Anderson will be so good as to discuss that experience and explain how it supports his position. For example, almost every bank robber violates CCW laws. How many of them are charged and does it actually affect their sentence? (Real criminals can be charged with real crimes.)

This touches on one of the interesting things about gun control debates. Folks often propose things that have been tried or are current law and insist that they'd have some benefit that they actually didn't have. In some cases, said advocacy actually turns into an entirely different law. For example, consider the assault weapon legislation. (If you disagree, be sure to explain how the regulated guns differ on relevant characteristics. Don't fall for the "my car looks like Dale Earnhardt's, so it is really fast fallacy.)

> Whatever are you talking about?

I'm guessing that Anderson has rather knee-jerk support for ineffective gun control laws.

It's easy enough to prove me wrong - Anderson merely has to cite stupid gun control laws that he opposes. That should be easy enough for someone who knows gun controls well enough to have an informed opinion, as Anderson would no doubt insist that he does.
11.8.2005 6:49pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Cramer: Most have some safety training requirements (some pretty minimal, some quite substantial).

Always happy to hear examples of sensible state laws.

Freeman: it's interesting that Anderson is not citing supporting evidence.

"Interesting" only in the sense that I haven't any, just as I haven't any evidence that drivers' licensing has any effect on public safety. There are subjects I obsess over, but guns--pro or con--isn't one of them. Happily, I can benefit from better-informed persons like Prof. Cramer.

It seems pretty self-evident that the high incidence of gun possession amongst the populace leads to many fights becoming lethal that wouldn't otherwise. But again, it's not something I have evidence on, or base my voting preferences on, or lose sleep over.

Your "guessing" is, I guess, "interesting" in a similar sense.
11.8.2005 10:57pm
ANM (mail):
Who gets the fattest entry? Karl Marx? Paul Ehrlich? John Maynard Keynes? Paul Krugman?
11.9.2005 3:02am
Andy Freeman (mail):
> It seems pretty self-evident that the high incidence of gun possession amongst the populace leads to many fights becoming lethal that wouldn't otherwise. But again, it's not something I have evidence on

Many things that seemed self-evident have been found to be false. That's why we don't stop with idle musings.

One question is whether gun control reduces criminal violence. We have experience suggesting that many forms don't. (What we don't have is any experience suggesting that any form does, but there are things that haven't been tried, some due to opposition from gun control advocates.)

Anderson's statement suggests that he's interested in that question, yet Anderson promotes said ineffective forms and seems uninterested in said experience.

Anderson's "I don't know/care about evidence" stance is admirable in its honesty and efficiency. My guess that he supports gun control regardless of its crime control effect seems solid at this point.
11.9.2005 11:11am
big dirigible (mail) (www):
"And that a reasonable licensure procedure would help diminish the number of such, to say nothing of winnowing out felons convicted of violent crimes, etc.?"

Unknown, as a "reasonable licensure procedure" is a rara avis.

Here in Massachusetts, one of the things which disqualifies one from gun possession in perpetuity is conviction for a "failure to report a hotel or motel fire" (to pull just one of the sillier items from the list).

Winnow out felons convicted of violent crimes? Novel idea. Where has it actually been tried?
11.9.2005 12:42pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):


Cramer: Most have some safety training requirements (some pretty minimal, some quite substantial).



Always happy to hear examples of sensible state laws.
My experience is that most people who support that amorphous blob called "gun control" have no idea what the existing laws are. Back in the early 1990s, a public opinion survey done in California found that a majority wanted a law banning mail order sales of firearms. Unfortunately for the majority, Congress passed that law in 1968.
11.9.2005 1:07pm
Talkie (mail):
Here's one -

http://www.rotten.com/

library/bio/crime/

spree-killers/james-oliver-huberty/
11.9.2005 4:47pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Like most educated Americans, I form many of my political opinions on casual evidence or inference. I could spend time researching them all, but until someone pays me to do it, my preferences will have to remain less adequately supported than one would like.

Fortunately for me, I am meekness incarnate, and make a point of visiting blogs with political leanings opposite of my own, that I may be occasionally enlightened.
11.9.2005 5:15pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
But, strongly held nonetheless.
11.10.2005 4:24pm