12/26/24
February 07, 2008
Hidden: Gun Massacre Planned at Super Bowl: A distraught Tempe man was within sight of the Super Bowl on Sunday with an assault rifle, but a change of heart kept him from his plan to unload 200 rounds of ammunition on the crowd, court records show. "I will test the theory that bullets speak louder than words," Kurt William Havelock wrote in a manifesto sent to the media before the planned massacre. "I will slay your children. I will shed the blood of the innocent,” Havelock wrote after being denied a liquor license for a bar. "No one destroys my dream. No one."
According to the article he has no mental defects that would warrant committing him to a mental hospital. Of course, people in the right frame of mind don't generally make plans to shoot up the Super Bowl.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:41 PM on February 07, 2008
I wonder if they would have played the game if he carried out the plan.
posted by rcade at 08:43 PM on February 07, 2008
Wow. This would seem to have the potential for having gone horribly bad. Not addressed in the article is whether the visible security at the game and nearby facilities weighed on his decision to not follow through. Whatever the reason it is just fortunate that he both backed out and peaceably turned himself in. owlhouse, it was a business dispute and only tangentially involves alcohol. Like Ying Yang Mafia said, there was no indication of mental illness. I'll add that there is, from the news reports, no indication of his being drunk. City councils have pissed off people before. Marvin Heemeyer in Colorado a few years ago turned a bulldozer into a tank and took out the town hall among other buildings.
posted by geekyguy at 08:54 PM on February 07, 2008
I guess the lesson here is to not mention you're going to call a place Drunkenstein's until after you get the liquor license. Explains why I never could open that day care.
posted by yerfatma at 09:21 PM on February 07, 2008
If I recall correctly, this guy is closely associated with Greg Maddux. I believe they were hunting partners at one time.
posted by bigrotty at 09:39 PM on February 07, 2008
Y'know, his MySpace only ever refers to it as The Haunted Castle and not only did he never buy drunkensteins.com even rcade hasn't bought it yet. (at least when I posted this it was still available)
posted by geekyguy at 09:43 PM on February 07, 2008
I'm honestly surprised no terrorist attack has ever happened at a super bowl yet. It seems like exactly the type of target they (they being anyone who kills masses to bring attention to their insane cause) would want to hit. If it ever happens i will be shocked like everyone else, but i wont be surprised. Thats why i don't bitch about standing in line for security.
posted by elijahin24 at 10:26 PM on February 07, 2008
According to the article he has no mental defects that would warrant committing him to a mental hospital No mental health issues at all? So it's OK to want to shoot a couple of hundred people? Not every mental health problem requires institutionalisation, and many go undiagnosed. Combine that with lax gun laws and you have problems. I take the point on the alcohol being tangential in this case. We now return you to your regular programming, which will probably include a debate on the constitutional right to bear arms.
posted by owlhouse at 10:27 PM on February 07, 2008
We now return you to your regular programming, which will probably include a debate on the constitutional right to bear arms. Ask and you shall receive. The guy was just protecting his family, that's all. Remember---guns don't kill people; people kill people. Whatever. And to think Huck-a-chuck is using this as a campaign platform.
posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 10:55 PM on February 07, 2008
I want to know what kind of mental health assessment one can come through clean despite saying you went to the Superbowl with an assault rifle with the intention of killing a bunch of people. When did that become 'normal' behaviour? "Guns don't kill people; people kill people... so what I thought: you give a gun to a monkey, and then let him into Charlton Heston's house, and then you lock the doors and you film it through the window and we'll find out... they might have to change the line to 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people, and monkeys do to (if they've got a gun)'"
posted by JJ at 07:37 AM on February 08, 2008
I think it's possible that the shooter was never going to do it. He just wanted attention and felt threatening innocent lives would do the trick. That's usually the case with threatening gunmen. I think it's those who shoot first and ask questions later that we should worry about. I mean, this guy sent a letter to the media before the game. It's like someone who says their suicidal compared to someone who says nothing and just kills themself. However, I gurantee that the security at next years super bowl will be increased exponentially.
posted by mcatom12 at 07:45 AM on February 08, 2008
All of you anti-gun activists should think about the fact that this guy was going to break the law and actually did break the law. What makes you think another law would have bothered him anymore than the law against murder. I have the right to bear arms and I exercise that right, what right do you have to infringe upon my rights? For every case of some psycho threatening to kill a bunch of people there are hundreds of cases of people who protected themselves with firearms that the media do not report because it doesn't suit their political bias. My guess is with the security at the Superbowl, this guy would not have even come close to carrying out his threat.
posted by Familyman at 07:59 AM on February 08, 2008
What I don't get is why the city council didn't tell him they would allow it based on a name change. They just took it upon themselves to piss on his dream to start a business because they didn't like a sign that he was going to put up. Ah government, it gets better everyday... People are going to go off the deep end more often because of petty BS like this... (folks, we are screwed if the high and mighties don't wake up)...
posted by bruce2ww at 08:07 AM on February 08, 2008
What I don't get is why the city council didn't tell him they would allow it based on a name change. Maybe they did bruce2ww, I'm sure there is alot we don't know about his prior council meetings or disputes. Dream pissed on or not, an AK-47 is not the answer. BTW: 6 were killed at a city council meeting last night in St. Louis. (Including 2 Police Officers) This happened about 14 miles away from my house. And this was done by a long-time business owner who had multiple disagreements with the council/mayor. Sad.
posted by BoKnows at 08:14 AM on February 08, 2008
Ah government, it gets better everyday... People are going to go off the deep end more often because of petty BS like this... (folks, we are screwed if the high and mighties don't wake up)... I went to my county Rep. Party meeting for the first time last niight....there was a guy talking about creating a county position for a "Code Enforcement Officer" so they could catch and fine people for obscure ordinance violations. He said it would be better than waiting for people to call the county and complain.....point is we need to change this thing from the bottom up. It will never happen from the top. We now return you to your regular programming, which will probably include a debate on the constitutional right to bear arms. There should be no debate....of the original 10 amendments, the first 8 address indivisual rights, the last two define the powers of the states vs. federal gov.(these have been largely ignored) There is no logical reason to argue that the 2nd amendment was the exception to the rule so to speak.
posted by Hannibal at 08:23 AM on February 08, 2008
There are a great many people in need of perspective. That's all I can say about this near-tragedy. I mean, really...it strikes me that while we spend a lot of time praising certain character traits, the real obvious primary-colors ones, we tend to overlook or downplay characteristics like resiliency, which are what really get you through life. Is there anyone reading this who hasn't had a dream denied? Is there anyone reading this who hasn't had major tragedy in their life? And is there anyone reading this who thinks an appropriate reaction is to do a nutty and harm a lot of other people?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:34 AM on February 08, 2008
He wouldn't have made it into the building. He could have possibly done some damage in the parking lot - but my guess is that the security would have been sufficient to limit some of the damage. Would they have played the game? Probably. My first issue - not my only one, but I'm a Canuck - with the 2nd amendment isn't the right to bear arms, but the right to bear assault rifles with hollowpoint shredders and 30 round banana clips. I'd have drawn the line a little differently. "We have the right to bear arms, or the right to arm bears - whatever the hell we want to do."
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:03 AM on February 08, 2008
"Havelock is charged with mailing threatening communications in the mailing of eight copies of a “manifesto” explaining the planned massacre." Nice grammar/sentence structure. Perhaps the paper's editor took the day off.
posted by zddoodah at 09:39 AM on February 08, 2008
"I have the right to bear arms" That's debatable. First of all, no court has ever held that the Second Amendment prevents STATE governments (as opposed to the federal government) from enacting laws that prohibit or restrict gun ownership/possession. Second, 10 of the 12 federal circuit courts of appeals (not to mention the prevailing opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court) have held that the Second Amendment only grants a right to bear arms in the context of a "well regulated Militia" and does not confer an individualized right to gun ownership/possession. "what right do you have to infringe upon my rights?" I don't have any right (unless you consider the fact that the Constitution only constrains governmental conduct). However, the government does have that right. Even if you live in DC or one of the states covered by the Fifth Circuit, no constitutional right is absolute. "For every case of some psycho threatening to kill a bunch of people there are hundreds of cases of people who protected themselves with firearms that the media do not report because it doesn't suit their political bias." Hundreds, eh? And you know this how? It's a convenient argument to assert baldly that you can't back up your premise because of some perceived media bias. Surely at least one of the thousands of media outlets in this diverse country doesn't have an anti-gun bias. Come on.
posted by zddoodah at 09:49 AM on February 08, 2008
For every case of some psycho threatening to kill a bunch of people there are hundreds of cases of people who accidentally kill a loved one while performing routine maintenance on a firearm, hundreds of cases of people who intentionally kill themselves with a firearm, and hundreds of cases of both happening in conjunction. One doesn't have to rely on imaginary instances going unreported in the press to make that claim, either.
posted by Hugh Janus at 10:25 AM on February 08, 2008
Study the facts before claiming something is imaginary. If you do any research you would find the truth about the statistical data. It's not hard to find if you actually look for the truth rather than look for what you want to be true. zddoodah, I'm not asserting anything baldly, I have a full head of hair.
posted by Familyman at 10:42 AM on February 08, 2008
Oh, in that case I'll go check all those unreported reports you mentioned. I'm sure they'll be easy to conjure up.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:02 AM on February 08, 2008
"There is no connection - and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one - between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone."
posted by JJ at 11:03 AM on February 08, 2008
There should be no debate....of the original 10 amendments, the first 8 address indivisual rights, the last two define the powers of the states vs. federal gov.(these have been largely ignored) There is no logical reason to argue that the 2nd amendment was the exception to the rule so to speak. Clearly there SHOULD be a debate. First off, they are called amendments because they do what?...amend, yes thats right. they change or add to the original law. they are not written in stone. Second they were written at a time when the light-bulb had yet to be invented. The world has changed around these amendments, and our founders had the wisdom to write a constitution that was flexible so that it could be adapted to the changing times. Third the second amendment says and i quote (or copy and paste): "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words due to the necessity of a militia to national security you can have a gun. Look at a calender it is 2008. We have the strongest national military in the world. I know, because i'm part of it. a "well regulated militia" is no longer necessary, hence the right to bear arms is no longer necessary. My dad's a member of the NRA because he hunts, and if he were any good at it, it would have saved my family a bundle on grocery bills. most people who own guns are decent law abiding citizens, who i do think should be allowed to have a gun for the purpose of hunting if they so choose. nobody needs a sniper rifle unless they are...y'know... a sniper in the army or marines. Nobody needs an assault rifle unless they are in the military or SWAT. nobody needs a machine gun. and we should be much more strenuous about background checks before selling hand-guns. The only reason to say "there should be no debate" about something is that you're afraid you'll lose. there are multiple valid points of view on anything and everything.
posted by elijahin24 at 11:36 AM on February 08, 2008
I think it's those who shoot first and ask questions later that we should worry about. I mean, this guy sent a letter to the media before the game. The Virginia Tech killer sent his multimedia manifesto to the media before also, and he carried it out. What I don't get is why the city council didn't tell him they would allow it based on a name change. They just took it upon themselves to piss on his dream to start a business because they didn't like a sign that he was going to put up. You can't run a business without the patience to deal with bureaucratic and tax hassles. This guy had just started the process of seeking his liquor license and he was ready to kill people over it. I suspect there's a bigger problem here motivating his actions than one government ruling.
posted by rcade at 11:45 AM on February 08, 2008
the first 8 address indivisual rights God damn it! Nobody's gonna take away my right to watch TV! Seriously though, I don't wanna get into a whole 2nd amendment debate. I'll just share a story that happened to me. When I was 17, a buddy of mine showed up at my house with a rifle he had just bought (He was a few years older). He told me it wasn't loaded and tossed it to me. I played with it. Pointed at a few friends. Pulled the trigger. The gun was loaded. The bullet missed another friend's head by one foot. The bullet hole and the slug are still in my childhood bedroom in NY. Two lives were almost destroyed that day. And as far as having a gun in the house for protection? I've got a four year old. The gun and the bullets would have to be so hidden away that if a burglar did break in, by the time I got to it, he'd either already be gone, or I'd be dead. I am very concerned about protecting my home. That's why I've got an alarm, a big dog, and, in my nightstand, a taser and pepper spray.
posted by cjets at 11:55 AM on February 08, 2008
cjets, so you want the government to regulate guns so you won't have one to aim at someone and pull the trigger? I wouldn't trust you with a taser either, should we legislate that as well? Hugh Janus, the statistics are available, they just aren't going to be found in the mainstream media. You'll have to rely on yourself to do some research rather than just watching the news and thinking you've got all the facts.
posted by Familyman at 12:28 PM on February 08, 2008
Hugh Janus, the statistics are available, they just aren't going to be found in the mainstream media. You'll have to rely on yourself to do some research rather than just watching the news and thinking you've got all the facts. Familyman, anyone can manipulate stats to say anything.
posted by elijahin24 at 12:32 PM on February 08, 2008
cjets, so you want the government to regulate guns so you won't have one to aim at someone and pull the trigger? Like Hugh Janus, I'm of the opinion that many many people die needlessly because of gun accidents or easy access to a lethal weapon. I believe that this far outweighs the number of families that protect themselves with a gun. And I shared a personal story that illustrates that. Do you have a personal story about how you scared off a burglar with your big bad gun, Dirty Harry? I wouldn't trust you with a taser either, should we legislate that as well? Tasers are NON-LETHAL. Given that you're someone who needs to make this a personal argument, you're right, YOU shouldn't trust me with a taser. I might have to tase you to shut you up. on preview/ Eli, he hasn't even bothered to manipulate any stats to show us anything. He's just preaching the NRA BS propaganda
posted by cjets at 12:40 PM on February 08, 2008
Or, in the context and spirit of this blog, you could help out a bit and point the direction to these facts. If there are indeed sites that could back up your assertions, I, for one, would love to visit them. Just link us to a few. Many visitors here are pretty diligent; they will read the data you direct them to and develop an opinion that is just as informed as you claim to be. Until then, you are just throwing out some pretty broad generalizations (i.e. the liberal media skew the fact about gun violence to promote their anti-gun agenda and whatnot)
posted by tahoemoj at 12:42 PM on February 08, 2008
You'll have to rely on yourself to do some research rather than just watching the news and thinking you've got all the facts. No, I won't. I'll rely on you to do some research and supply me with facts to back up your claims. If you don't, I'll continue to believe that your claims are baseless and that your statistics don't exist. That's how it works outside of your dreamworld.
posted by Hugh Janus at 01:11 PM on February 08, 2008
What makes you think another law would have bothered him anymore than the law against murder. That seems like an ethics vs. morals statement. Hard to apply to this case. I ran a stop sign (rolled through, really) today. But I'm not gonna get an AK-47 and kill someone.
posted by BoKnows at 01:54 PM on February 08, 2008
Must have been a disgruntled Colts fan. Too bad it had to end like this.
posted by aMAIZEd Mark at 02:23 PM on February 08, 2008
What makes you think another law would have bothered him anymore than the law against murder. Well, for one thing, this guy would have probably had a much more difficult time getting an AK-47 if our laws were different. For instance, heroin is illegal and difficult though nowhere near impossible to get; I personally would have no clue where to buy some if I went over the edge and wanted it and I expect guns would be in a similar situation. Of course, should the law change, there's the problem of the existing supply on hand and that, unlike heroin, guns don't have a short shelf life.
posted by billsaysthis at 02:46 PM on February 08, 2008
You certainly have tried to cover yourselves. If I give stats then I'm manipulating them, if I don't then they don't exist. Reference 1. NRA website has story after story of verifiable sources who have indeed protected themselves with firearms. 2. A book that was written and is currently available but would require you to read for yourselves is "More Guns, Less Crime". Now if you chose not to read these sources that is entirely up to you but they verify what I have stated on here. I will not continue to argue this any further. It is not sports related and there is no point when it is clear you would not be persuaded whatever I present to you.
posted by Familyman at 02:50 PM on February 08, 2008
Now if you chose not to read these sources that is entirely up to you but they verify what I have stated on here. Assertions such as yours can't be verified with anecdotes and more assertions. That's why people are asking you for the numbers. I will not continue to argue this any further. It is not sports related and there is no point when it is clear you would not be persuaded whatever I present to you. I'd say it's clear that those who are not of your view won't be persuaded no matter how many assertions you make. They might be persuaded by data, but there's no way to produce data that support woulda-coulda-shoulda assertions. You're certainly right about one thing, though, this has strayed pretty far afield from anything sports-related.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:08 PM on February 08, 2008
This guy must have been a Patriots fan who somehow knew that they were going to lose. They shouldn't have took away his right to own a business named whatever like(Drunkenstein's). This guy still must not have been right in the head if he was going to kill 200-some innocent people. Lastly, this is not sports-related at all, it's just because he was at the Super Bowl?
posted by Scars at 03:17 PM on February 08, 2008
Authorities stealing plots from movies again to keep us all living in fear? Am I alone in having seen Two Minute Warning?
posted by Drood at 03:44 PM on February 08, 2008
I might have to tase you to shut you up. Don't tase me bro!
posted by irunfromclones at 04:13 PM on February 08, 2008
Am I alone in having seen Two Minute Warning? Or Black Sunday.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:24 PM on February 08, 2008
Yup, First thing I thought of when I saw this post. Bruce Dern as his wacky best and based on a novel by the same guy who wrote Silence of the Lambs.
posted by cjets at 04:42 PM on February 08, 2008
I personaly dislike guns. A good friend of mines 15 year old son blew his left nut off playing with a 45 he did not think was loaded and shoved it into the waist band of his jeans. He was pretty stoned when it happened, drugs and guns, great combo. I do support the individuals right to own a gun. Still I believe some laws should be changed. Familyguy you have been here long enough I think to know if you are going through out statements such as you have the majority here will expect you to back it up with facts. I am not going to go looking for proof of what you say if you are not able to post the facts to back up your satements.
posted by Folkways at 07:04 PM on February 08, 2008
@elijahin24: ***First off, they are called amendments because they do what?...amend, yes thats right. they change or add to the original law.*** Please do some reading on Constitutional history before making statements like that. You do realize, don't you, that the Constitution would never have been ratified in the first place without a promise that a Bill of Rights would be immediately enacted in order to amend the Constitution to prevent it from becoming an enabler of federal tyranny? No Bill of Rights, no Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is part of that Bill of Rights. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, repeal it. Until then, all your arguments about what it "really" means, ie, all your attempts to reinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually says, is unconstitutional and dangerous. ***"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words due to the necessity of a militia to national security you can have a gun. Look at a calender it is 2008. We have the strongest national military in the world. I know, because i'm part of it. a "well regulated militia" is no longer necessary, hence the right to bear arms is no longer necessary.*** You have it completely backwards. The fact that we have the strongest national military in the world is EXACTLY why we need the 2nd Amendment more than ever. Go read the actual writings of the men who wrote the Constitution and who wrote the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment. Your type of thinking is exactly the kind of thinking that the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights in order to guard against. You think that the 2nd Amendment is only about national security? A militia is the armed citizenry, plain and simple. "Well regulated" in 18th century English does not mean what you think it means, nor does it invalidate the fact that the 2nd Amendment is a protection of an individual's right to bear arms, regardless of the usefulness of that right in maintaining militias. The US Army, Navy and Air Force are not the militia, and the writers of the 2nd Amendment intended the militia to be a counter to and completely independent of the federal government. The militia clause could be completely removed from the 2nd Amendment without changing the plain meaning of the Amendment. You think that our military is really being used to defend the USA? Really? In Iraq? We have US military bases in over 130 countries around the world - how is that "defending" the USA? Is that really what the Founding Fathers had in mind by "national defense"? That's pretty a pretty bizarre perspective. Even if the 2nd Amendment was only about "national security" (which it is not) the fact remains that it is part of the Constitution and the only way you can legally get rid of it is to repeal it. Until then, no dice. Any judge (or judges) who invalidates the 2nd Amendment on his own authority is in violation of his oath of office. You cannot repeal the plain meaning of the Constitution, and it is clear what the 2nd Amendment means, the men who wrote it explicitly said it was an individual right, a right which helps to not only defend the country from foreign enemies, but to defend it from domestic enemies as well, including if necessary, the US Army itself. If you don't know this stuff, it means you are horrendously poorly educated on this issue. Go read real history - not the tripe they serve up in the popular mass media.
posted by dave2007 at 07:36 PM on February 08, 2008
The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that has a introductory clause defining its purpose. Because a militia (part-time citizen soldiers who defend their communities in emergencies) is “necessary to the security of a free state,” the amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Some legal scholars interpret the first clause of the Second Amendment as giving the people the right to bear arms only as part of a “well regulated militia.” To these scholars, such a militia would be today’s National Guard, which is the modern-day successor to the minutemen of the colonial period. Other scholars emphasize that a militia, at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, consisted of “the body of the people,” as affirmed in several of the state resolutions proposing that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution. During the colonial period, Americans came to despise the British use of a standng army (a permanent army of professional soldiers), a permanent force of professional soldiers. Americans preferred the part-time citizen soldiers of a militia, whose roots in the community would make them less likely to oppress their neighbors. Under the militia system, all free adult males were required to own arms and ammunition and to “muster” or assemble periodically for training. Where is all this training of men with guns going on? I know there are select ranges where training occures but I have never been and don't own a gun so I guess I am breaking the law. Well shit I guess I better get me a gun huh... I bet the dude I get my smoke from could find me one. http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/highlight.php?keyword=&file=09_amd_02%2Fexplain%2F127_explain.html
posted by Folkways at 08:00 PM on February 08, 2008
nobody needs a sniper rifle unless they are...y'know... a sniper in the army or marines. Nobody needs an assault rifle unless they are in the military or SWAT. nobody needs a machine gun. and we should be much more strenuous about background checks before selling hand-guns. Agreed on this opinion, however does it stop there. If these anti - gun nuts stop there, I'm on board. But I'm afraid that the animal rights people and anti gun folks want to ban all guns. Hunted all my life and don't own a handgun. I rather have a shot gun to face a intruder anyway. I'm just afraid they want to take all of guns away and be left without a sport I love, or defenseless when some punk happens to break in my home while I'm there. Maybe I could call the police to recover my body. Statitically most police arrive at the scene to collect the remains and gather evidence. I'll be dammed if I going to put my well being in the hands of somebody that sticks a toe tag on me.
posted by Nakeman at 08:14 PM on February 08, 2008
So an otherwise interesting story gets bogged down in bloody constitutional blathering and people who like to hunt and kill furry animals in the name of "sport". Killing something just for fun is sick. Makes no difference if it's humans or animals. This says everything about hunting. People don't need guns. Some of the most peaceful nations on Earth have limited or no guns. Sadly the US can't be fixed because your ancestors fucked it up with that stupid piece of paper all those years ago.
posted by Drood at 01:41 AM on February 09, 2008
Way to fix this thread with a big fat troll. Thanks.
posted by yerfatma at 08:39 AM on February 09, 2008
With that, I'm shooting down this discussion.
posted by rcade at 09:52 AM on February 09, 2008
Guns. Alcohol. Mental health issues. Great combination.