Many families are rife with older males who, even as boys, violently target younger female family members. Behind the scenes are usually parents who bestow an entitlement that the world no longer recognizes nor automatically rewards, which frustrates those males. When entitlement also collides with mental illness, there's no limit to what they'll do. Likely that drugs were also a part of his youth and adult years. Just as her life was one of leaving home to succeed in life, his was probably strewn with jealousy and failure. Jails and nut houses are full of guys like that. Society needs to begin protecting females from loose screw predators, but it also needs to diagnose more of these males when young boys. We have the genetic markers for this, just not the will.

I remember when I took Psych101

Tom, how do you know he didn't do it? Or are you just assuming?

Well, sibling rivalry you know.

Jakta-

Tom was pointing out that Rochomp was commenting as if the brother had already been tried and found guilty. He was making the point that you shouldn't jump to conclusions but should instead wait to hear the whole story. He never once said that the brother did or didn't commit the crime. Your question is a perfect example of what is wrong with commenters on the Internet. You jump to conclusions without knowing the full story and think that you're being clever when you ask idiotic questions. Regardless of what the story tells you, why don't you assume innocence until guilt has been proven? However, if you insist on making asinine comments, at least do so with some originality.

Tom, seriously? Are you going out of your way to be argumentative? Obviously there's compelling evidence that he did it if he was arrested and charged with the murder already. But you're right, innocent until proven guilty. Just like Casey Anthony I suppose... and OJ Simpson.

Do yourself a favor and look up the murder statistics of the UK vs the US---and the method by which the vast majority of those murders are committed.

There Gun control leaves only the criminals with guns and does not allow the honest citizens to defend themselves. Thank God for our 2nd Amendment.

Kudos for our right to own and carry Guns

What a dumb argument.

The only gun control that matters is whether you hit what you're aiming at.

Why does NO ONE understand that passing a law controlling guns does nothing? Of all the laws already passed to "control" guns, how many criminals out there abide by them? I'm thinking of a number between zero and zero.

Good point Mike. Since criminals disregard laws there's no point in having any laws at all. Makes sense to...

...you

Following that logic to its end, then why have any laws, since there will always be humans that flaunt or ignore them? Why make murder illegal at all, since people have been committing it since time out of mind? The fact that criminals disregard laws is an absurd argument for not having laws, since the majority of citizens are not criminals. Laws are not just to maintain some order in a society, but also to provide some consistent consequences for certain actions that imperil it.

All three of you are a bit inaccurate in your analysis.

There should be some simple laws regarding the illegal use of guns. Which we have MORE THAN Enough of.

Prohibition of guns or anything else the greater public demands access to; DOES NOT WORK!

Criminals will continue to get and use guns if prohibition laws are in place; while law abiding citizens would follow the laws, that creates an ideal climate for innocent law abiding citizens to be easy targets for criminals. It also increases the power of gangs and criminal empires.

Logic is the only rule govt should follow and unfortunately most in govt are more concern about helping themselves than using logic to reach decisions that are difficult in the short term but best for all in the long run.

Ah, red herrings are in season again I see!

Let's see: did I say anything at all about "all" laws? Nope. I said "...laws already passed to 'control' guns...." I did not say we *shouldn't* have laws reflecting consequences of unlawful use. My point was with regard to outright denial of access to guns, as implied by the post about the UK's such laws.

We could go that route. The route that says no one can have a gun. But will the criminals listen? Of course not. Criminals can get guns in the UK just easily as if they had no laws at all regarding access.

It was a nice try on both of your parts to attempt to change what I said into something else entirely for sake of making your own weak argument.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who
are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes

. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for
the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."

-- Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father who was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence

It doesn't matter why he did it....it is incredibly sick. He must be off his head either on drugs, mental illness or both.

I suggest you look up the word "sarcasm" in the dictionary. I even spelled it for you.

you people and your endless senseless name-calling...keep up the good work.

The article did not say HOW she died. Only that her arms, legs and head were cut off. He could have shot her, stabbed her, strangled her. More info will have to come out before the gun conversation in this instance is valid.

In the USA we would stick a needle in his arm and end it

.... after 20plus years worth of appeals...

Yeah, so instead of chopping off her head and extremities, he could've just shot her instead, right? Good lord, how stupid. If the 2nd amendment protects so many Americans, then why are so many innocent people SHOT and KILLED with guns every year? People always find a way to murder each other, whether they have guns or not...

Why does even a murder in another country ALWAYS have to be a red/blue battle on these boards?

Sebastion,

You said it yourself. "People always find a way to murder each other, whether they have guns of not." So I will just keep my guns and be able to defend myself from the evildoers, OK? By the way, since they have not found the head or extremities, how do you know that he DIDN'T shoot her?

Maybe for the fact that they don't CARRY firearms in the UK, and that NO bullet wounds were found on the body? They were siblings; it wouldn't be that difficult for him to get close, stab her or knock her unconscious and then proceed to dismember her. He wouldn't need (and was unlikely to possess) a gun.

As for people always finding a way to kill each other? True. But you don't hear about mass-stabbings in schools, or people throwing knives at each other in shopping malls...

Guns sure as hell make it a lot easier.

This is one death. Think about the 30,000 gun deaths in the USA every year.

He probably raped her first to make sure she wasn't a virgin. You have to do those honor killings right or it doesn't count.