Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Campus Scot tells of shock at massacre



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 February 2008
A SCOTTISH student who sat in a US classroom less than two hours before a gunman killed five people there has spoken of the devastation it has caused among the university campus's students.
Fraser Gibson, 23, who is on a football scholarship at Northern Illinois University, had a class immediately before Thursday's massacre.

By the time Stephen Kazmierczak opened fire, Gibson was back at home and only heard about the shooting when h
is panicked flatmate ran back to find out if he was okay.

Gibson, a former Dumbarton Academy pupil, said: "I was in the classroom about an hour and 45 minutes before the shooting happened. My communications class was scheduled for the session before.

"There are about 160 students enrolled in the class that the shooter opened fire on. One of my friends said that his roommate should have been in that class, but she skipped it that day.

"I'd come home after my class, and about one and a half hours later my roommate ran into the apartment shouting for me. He knew I'd had a class in that room and was worried that I might have been one of the victims.

"Nobody seems to have any idea why he did it. As far as anyone knows, it seems like he chose a totally random classroom and entirely random victims. But he made the trip back to this university just to kill others and himself.

"It's pretty sad on campus at the moment. There was a service at which the Reverend Jesse Jackson spoke. The place was packed out – I think about 500 people attended. It was a good opportunity for people to come and pay their respects."

Gibson said everyone at the university was connected to a victim in some way.

"I didn't know any of the victims personally, but I am friends with the sister of one of the girls who got shot. She was in a critical condition after the shooting – she was shot in the leg and in the torso – but she's been transferred to a hospital in Chicago and it looks like she'll pull through. Unfortunately, her boyfriend was one of the victims.

"It's not going to be easy to move on. People will be paranoid for a while, and almost every student will be linked to one of the victims, directly or indirectly."

Gibson's mother, Joan, 50, a teacher at Gavinburn Primary School in Old Kilpatrick, Dumbartonshire, was out at dinner when the shootings took place and had left her mobile phone at home.

By the time she got home, her son had already called and told his grandmother, Gwen McIndewar, 81, that he was all right.

Mrs Gibson said: "As soon as I got in the door she said, 'Fraser's okay.' I didn't have the chance to worry, as I didn't know anything had happened.

"I was absolutely shocked and obviously heartfelt for those parents who were involved, and thankful that he was not there at the time.

"When I watched the news and it hit me, I was quite emotional, but I'm just glad he is okay.

"I've spoken to him – they're all kind of reeling. It will be hard for them to go back into that place."

Gibson's grandmother had just seen the news and was about to pick up the phone to call her daughter when it started ringing.

"I was thinking: 'Please God, let it be Fraser'," she said. "Then when I lifted it up, it was him. He didn't want to hang about or say too much. He wanted to ring around and see if any of his friends had been caught up in it."

Gibson, a Rangers fan, is in his fourth and final year at Northern Illinois University, and has yet to decide whether he will return home to Scotland.

Kazmierczak, 27, who had studied sociology at the university in 2007, injured 15 other people before turning the gun on himself. Police do not know why he entered the crowded lecture theatre, armed with three handguns and a shotgun, and started firing, although his behaviour had become more erratic recently after he stopped taking unspecified medication.

Killer's MySpace picture reveals gun fetish

A REMARKABLE picture of tattooed university campus killer Steven Kazmierczak emerged yesterday.

The MySpace image shows him wearing a T-shirt depicting the Stars and Stripes with a gun superimposed. A stunned community struggled to understand what caused the 27-year-old to open fire on a class at Northern Illinois University, leaving six people dead.

A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment centre said Kazmierczak was placed there after high school by his parents. She said he used to cut himself and had resisted taking his medication.

He also had a short-lived stint as a prison guard, and he was in the Army for about six months in 2001-02, but he told a friend he had been given a psychological discharge.

Exactly what set Kazmierczak off is unknown. On Thursday, armed with three handguns and a pump-action shotgun, he stepped from behind a screen on the lecture hall's stage and opened fire on a geology class.

He killed five students before committing suicide.




The full article contains 874 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 February 2008 9:43 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Gun crime
 
1

Lynne,

USA 17/02/2008 03:20:22
He was taking medications for his mental illness, and stopped taking it for about 2 weeks. He had become erratic in those weeks. They never found a suicide note, and I don't think he wrote one, so they will probably never know why..except without his meds he probably was totally paronoid and off the wall. It is such a tragic shame, and it makes the US look like the "shoot-em gang" that we are not.
This was a very smart guy, who was honored by his professors, and even taught a class. It is a horror story.
2

james 1st,

hamilton 17/02/2008 08:01:28
whilst this is a tragic event it seems that it is acceptable in the usa, otherwise the would at least attempt to do something about their gun problem
3

Bob Brundige,

Springfield, KY USA 17/02/2008 08:38:00
Too many slow, grumbling, highly paid, mute, and dull politicians that sit still, and never address the real issues affecting our country. Like telling the hunters and target practicers to support something else besides their precious gun rights. So much crime goes on here, with guns, whilst politicians assure change, if they get voted in office. Nothing ever changes...for the better, anyway.
4

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 17/02/2008 09:15:02
2
james 1st,
hamilton

------------------------------------

Hey Dude ,

Its not acceptable in the USA .

We have a 2nd. Amendment to our Constitution giving the masses the right to bear arms.

Yes we have 200 to,300 million guns in the hands of US citizens.

But I. ask you how many knives are in the hands of Scots. As the knife seems to be the weapon of choice for doing murder in Scotland.

The US has 300 million people, Scotland has 5 million people. So proportional to each population Scots people carry or own 3 million too 5 million knives which they can use to do murder with.

GC
5

Gothic Rose,

17/02/2008 10:03:26
1# "this was a very smart guy,honoured by his professors,even taught in class" So?
6

Happyhibee1956,

17/02/2008 12:09:49
#4

Just becuase its in the constitution, dos'nt make it right.

How many children were shot last year? How many Killed?
7

Angaothin,

Oak Hill 17/02/2008 18:00:41
The US Constitution does not give the masses the right to bear arms, and only morons who can neither read nor understand the origins of the 2nd amendment would claim that it does. The right belongs to militias, not to individuals. Until and unless every citizen of the U.S. is required to be a part of the national militia, as is the case in Switzerland, there will be no intrinsic individual right to bear arms. As long as my stupid fellow Americans (most of whom are far more recent arrivals than my family, which helped to craft the Constitution) believe that everyone has the right to be armed to the teeth, however, we will continue to kill each other at a rate unprecedented in the civilized world. Personally, I think everyone who believes that we should have access to guns should be shot once in each leg and once in each arm with a 45-caliber bullet. Then we'd see how many of them really think we need guns.
8

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 17/02/2008 21:43:09
7
Angaothin,
Oak Hill

Dude we are very familiar with the @nd Amendment and its association to Militia , for those times long gone.

Dude read the following, its for 2008 and up to date

The Supreme Court Takes On the Second Amendment
---------------------------------------------
The last time the Supreme Court entertained a 2nd amendment case was almost 70 years ago. At that time they focused on minutiae around the concept of a militia, and concluded that the 2nd amendment only applies to types of firearms that would be pertinent to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. They did not address whether the right iself applies to all individuals, or only those belonging to a militia, perhaps assuming that was clear enough in context. Nevertheless, that ruling has bolstered the anti-gun lobby by focusing on the militia aspect of the 2nd amendment, rather than acknowledging the imperative that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps, this time, the Supreme Court will get it right. Or perhaps not. It’s always a crap shoot when the Supreme Court takes up interpretation of a Constitutional amendment. Once they rule, either all of us win or all of us lose. However, if they’re going to undertake it, better to have them do it now. The next administration may pack the court with liberals who would rule that the amendment doesn’t apply to individuals at all, and only those belonging to a state militia (e.g., National Guard) have the right to keep or bear arms.

Those who argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals base their argument on the ambiguous wording of the dangling participle at the beginning of the amendment, which refers to “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” It is not clear from the wording in the amendment whether that participle represents a condition upon which the right to keep and bear arms is contingent, or an example of a reason why the right
9

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 17/02/2008 21:44:21
correction

2nd Amendment ..NOT @nd Amendment

GC
10

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 17/02/2008 21:50:28
Ignore my #8 # 9 posts

7
Angaothin,
Oak Hill

Dude we are very familiar with the 2nd Amendment and its association to Militia , for those times long gone.

Dude read the following, its for 2008 and up to date

The Supreme Court Takes On the Second Amendment
----------------------------------------------------
The last time the Supreme Court entertained a 2nd amendment case was almost 70 years ago. At that time they focused on minutiae around the concept of a militia, and concluded that the 2nd amendment only applies to types of firearms that would be pertinent to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. They did not address whether the right iself applies to all individuals, or only those belonging to a militia, perhaps assuming that was clear enough in context. Nevertheless, that ruling has bolstered the anti-gun lobby by focusing on the militia aspect of the 2nd amendment, rather than acknowledging the imperative that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Perhaps, this time, the Supreme Court will get it right. Or perhaps not. It’s always a crap shoot when the Supreme Court takes up interpretation of a Constitutional amendment. Once they rule, either all of us win or all of us lose. However, if they’re going to undertake it, better to have them do it now. The next administration may pack the court with liberals who would rule that the amendment doesn’t apply to individuals at all, and only those belonging to a state militia (e.g., National Guard) have the right to keep or bear arms.

Those who argue that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals base their argument on the ambiguous wording of the dangling participle at the beginning of the amendment, which refers to “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” It is not clear from the wording in the amendment whether that participle represents a condition upon which the right to keep and bear arms is contingent, or an exa
11

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 17/02/2008 21:53:36
#10 contd:

mple of a reason why the right was considered important. Nothing in the text of the amendment specifies that the existence of a militia is a required condition for the people to maintain their right to keep and bear arms. Neither does it say that is the only reason why this right should be protected. It simply mentions the importance of a militia, and then leaves it dangling. The grammatical taboo against dangling participles lies in their inherent ambiguity. Now that the framers of the amendment are long gone, there’s no way to clarify with absolute certainty what they intended, — at least not by simply by reading the text of the amendment itself.

Therefore, to understand their intended meaning, one must look further than that specific amendment, and take into account the context in which it was written, specifically the fact that it was included in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to secure protection for individual rights from infringement by the government. If all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are intended to secure the rights of individuals, why would the framers have slipped one in that had nothing to do with securing the rights of the individual, but rather applied to some abstract collective body?

The same people who want to wield a dangling participle to abridge our individual rights also claim that the term “the people,” as used in the 2nd amendment, does not refer to individuals, but rather to the collective population, or representatives thereof (e.g., the militia). The 4th amendment also refers to “the right of the people” to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Would anybody seriously argue that the 4th amendment does not protect the right of individuals to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, but rather the right of some abstract body that represents the collective population? Perhaps what the founding fathers really meant was that only the police should be secure
12

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 17/02/2008 21:56:43
#10 contd:

against unreasonable search and seizure…

Given the context of the 2nd amendment, and its prominent inclusion in the Bill of Rights, it could not be more clear that it refers to the rights of individuals. It would have had to have been included by accident if it truly had the singular characteristic that it, alone among the amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, was not intended to protect the rights of individuals from being infringed by government

Dude,
Stop trying to shove ur opinions down our throats. Not all Americans are stupid , We can read and understand English ..dude.

GC

13

John Blackley,

Winter Garden, FL 17/02/2008 22:27:33
(Yawn) Each and every time a deranged individual runs amok with a gun in the United States, I read the newspapers and come across the usual crop of holier-than thou, finger-pointing, Americans-are-all-crazy, tsk-tskers.

Well, yes. Where you have guns then you're going to have gun crime. Yes, the United States does allow (comparatively) unfettered ownership of guns. Yes, there are many people - who I've met personally - int he United States who I'm not happy about having a remote control for the tv - never mind a gun.

So, having said all of that, can we move on - or does it just feel so damned good to be able to point the finger?
14

SouthernGent,

18/02/2008 04:39:33
Those on the left oppose gun ownership because they can kill people, yet they also favor abortion. Figure that one out.
15

Dáithí,

San Jose 18/02/2008 05:43:14
#2 - James

>"whilst this is a tragic event it seems that it is acceptable in the usa..."

Wrong, it is not any more acceptable in the US than murder is in your country.

Remember, Europeans and Americans are coming from very different directions on this issue:

Europeans have historically had few freedoms, you history is that of wresting freedom away from the Kings, Queens, Dukes and other Lords that had the power.

You were at their mercy, and over a period of time you were able to gain freedoms away from them and for yourselves.

Americans, on the other hand, began with guaranteed freedoms and have been fighting to keep them from being diminished.

Gun ownership was instilled as a right to prevent this decay of freedom.

Like any freedom, there are people that misuse it.
16

Laura Collins,

Southeastern 18/02/2008 15:29:33
EXPERT GROUP DISCOVERS 5 REASONS WHY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ARE NOT SAFE

The SERAPH Research Team, consisting of education and law enforcement experts have discovered five reasons, which create unsafe college campuses.

The SERAPH Research Team provides a bi-yearly school safety report for Congress and in 2006 provided an assessment of the “The Virginia Tech Review Panel Report”.

1. Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, police departments across the United States have been training in “active shooter” response. This has been a well-established practice for use in public [K-12] schools.

However, our survey of colleges and universities security directors and police chiefs shows that few have had this training. Two reasons were given for this, the first was the cost, administrators did not want to pay for the training and second administrators barred campus security / police administrators from seeking out the training because they did not want a “militaristic campus atmosphere”.

2. College Administrators have no training in security or police operations and as a result micromanage security operations on their campuses. This is problematic because of the obvious delay it causes in response time. In addition, when a college or university has a police department micromanagement by administrators can violate state law regarding obstruction of justice.

3. A proper security audit is vitally important to campus security. However, our survey of security directors / police chiefs indicates that most college administrators will not allow these assessments to be done. Two reasons for this refusal is the fear of liability exposure and the chance that the audit would require changes in management systems.

4. Threat assessment as a science has existed in the United States since the early 1940s. Predication and prevention of violence is a critical aspect of campus security and one that in SERAPH’s experience is seriously lacking on higher education campu
17

Dáithí,

San Jose 18/02/2008 18:14:29
#3 - BB

>"Like telling the hunters and target practicers to support something else besides their precious gun rights"

Just what the US needs BB, guys like you demanding that their politicians tell others what rights they should support.

There's too much of that going on right now anyway.
18

Dáithí,

San Jose 18/02/2008 18:16:02
#8 - #12 - CG

Wow, GC - Gun Rights, Dude!
19

Dáithí,

San Jose 18/02/2008 18:23:42
#13 - John

>"So, having said all of that, can we move on - or does it just feel so damned good to be able to point the finger?"

You've put your 'finger' right on it John!

If you follow many conversations it merely appears to be a place where people can vent their spleen against others, the US in particular.

'The Scotsman's' editorial staff understand this and many times doesn't allow comments on stories of a sensitive nature.

You should see the whining on other threads by people that are outraged that they have been deprived of an opportunity to 'stick it to' the US.
20

Dáithí,

San Jose 18/02/2008 18:28:01
#7 - Angaothin

>"As long as my stupid fellow Americans (most of whom are far more recent arrivals than my family, which helped to craft the Constitution)"

My, not just an elitist but a condescending, snooty one too.

Curse those immigrants for coming to the US and expecting a bunch of rights, eh?

I see that you're all for 'kneecapping' them, then?
21

Dáithí,

San Jose 18/02/2008 18:37:21
# 6 Happyhibee1956 (Yeaaa Hibs!)

>"How many children were shot last year? How many Killed?"

Too many.

Too many dies in car crashes, of abuse, by knives, fists and heavy metal objects. Neglect.

How many die in Darfur by guns - couldn't the EU end this just by going down and taking the guns away from 'the bad men'?

Too many.

The whole would would be spotless if everyone just cleaned their own house.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you think shops should be allowed to sell replica weapons to the public?
Yes, if used properly they are just harmless fun.
Yes, but there’s no demand for them so what’s the point.
No, they could be mistaken for the real thing.

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.