Pedophilia, Preemptive Imprisonment, and the Ethics of Predisposition

The first two weeks of 2013 were marked by a flurry of news articles considering “the new science” of pedophilia. Alan Zarembo’s article for the Los Angeles Times focused on the increasing consensus among researchers that pedophilia is a biological predisposition similar to heterosexuality or homosexuality. Rachel Aviv’s piece for The New Yorker shed light upon the practice of ‘civil commitment’ in the US, a process by which inmates may be kept in jail past their release date if a panel decides that they are at risk of molesting a child (even if there is no evidence that they have in the past). The Guardian’s Jon Henley quoted sources suggesting that perhaps some pedophilic relationships aren’t all that harmful after all. And Rush Limbaugh chimed in comparing the ‘normalization’ of pedophilia to the historical increase in the acceptance of homosexuality, suggesting that recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation would be tantamount to condoning child molestation.

So what does it all mean? While most people I talked to in the wake of these stories (I include myself) were fascinated by the novel scientific evidence and the compelling profiles of self-described pedophiles presented in these articles, we all seemed to have a difficult time wrapping our minds around the ethical considerations at play. Why does it matter for our moral appraisal of pedophiles whether pedophilia is innate or acquired? Is it wrong to imprison someone for a terrible crime that they have not yet committed but are at a “high risk” of committing in the future? And if we say that we can’t “blame” pedophiles for their attraction to children because it is not their “fault” – they were “born this way” – is it problematic to condemn individuals for acting upon these (and other harmful) desires if it can be shown that poor impulse control is similarly genetically predisposed? While I don’t get around to fully answering most of these questions in the following post, my aim is to tease out the highly interrelated issues underlying these questions with the goal of working towards a framework by which the moral landscape of pedophilia can be understood.


Sexual Orientation?

A good place to start seems to be to try to understand the controversy over whether or not pedophilia should be defined as a sexual orientation akin to heterosexuality and homosexuality. In other words, why does it matter how we label it?
In his LA Times article, Zarembo notes:

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.[1]

Like many, Zarembo implicitly links sexual orientation and immutability; pedophilia, this argument goes, ought to be seen as a sexual orientation precisely because it is unchangeable. It’s far from clear, however, how this would alter our understanding of the morality of being sexually attracted to children. Presumably, if pedophilia were based on childhood experiences, we might attempt more early childhood interventions but it wouldn’t make sense to blame pedophiles for their early environment and upbringing any more than for their biological predisposition: either way it is out of their control. I’ll talk more about these interconnected notions of control, fault, and blame at the end of this post.

Rush Limbaugh and some members of the religious right have argued that recognizing pedophilia as a sexual orientation will have the same result as the relatively recent recognition of homosexuality as a sexual orientation: it will become more acceptable to act upon those sexual desires. This logic seems obviously confused. The reason we think that homosexual intercourse is morally acceptable (and was before society “recognized” it as so) seems primarily to do with the understanding that it is a consensual act, not because it follows from an innate orientation rather than an acquired desire. Similarly, it would be strange to say that we think having sex with a child is wrong because pedophilia is an acquired rather than an innate attraction; we think it is wrong because children are not capable of consenting to sex due largely to their underdeveloped reasoning and decision-making capacities. (This at least partially seems to explain why you might have more trouble judging the actions of an adult who has sex with a 17-year-old than an adult who has sex with an 8-year-old; a 17-year-old hovers around the point at which we think he can make this decision for himself.) Having sex with a child, then, will be wrong regardless of whether the underlying attraction is deeply-rooted in the offender’s biology.

Thus recognizing as a society that certain individuals are intrinsically attracted to children need not and does not imply that we condone acting upon these desires. What it does imply is that attempting to alter such individuals’ desires is like telling a heterosexual man to stop being attracted to women; it won’t be very productive. It implies that a better method for preventing child molestation is focusing on behavior – both by getting pedophiles to empathize with the physical and psychological harm a child would experience if molested and by helping them to identify and exercise control over those types of situations in which their desires are most pronounced.[2]

Risk and Guilt

Even among those who agree that pedophilia is best characterized as a sexual orientation, there is still much disagreement over what society ought to do about identified pedophiles who have not molested a child in any way. This was the motivating question behind Rachel Aviv’s article for The New Yorker. In it, she profiles “John,” a middle-aged American who was sentenced to four and a half years in federal prison for possession of child pornography and attempting to persuade a minor he met in an online chatroom to have sex (the minor was actually an undercover FBI agent). Although he admitted to being a pedophile, he had never molested a child.

Yet a 2006 federal statute, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, allows a Certification Review Panel to detain inmates indefinitely past their release dates if it determines that an inmate is “sexually dangerous” and seriously at risk of molesting a child if released.[3] In John’s case, as has apparently become common, this decision was made based on the testimony of a psychologist who used an actuarial assessment instrument called the Static-99. She determined that John was in the “high risk” category based on the 10-question instrument, which includes risk factors like whether he had “ever lived with [a] lover for at least two years,” whether he had any non-sexual violent convictions, the number of both charges and convictions of prior sex offences, and certain characteristics of victims.

Deeming him a significant threat if released, the Panel decided to hold John past his release date. It wasn’t until four years later that he was able to challenge this decision in trial. At this trial, the judge confirmed the Panel’s decision and sentenced John to “therapeutic confinement” until a time at which he is no longer considered “sexually dangerous.” Again, this judgment relied heavily upon the testimony of the prosecution’s forensic psychologist that John had “roughly a 24.7-per-cent chance of reoffending within five years” using her scaling of the Static-99.[4]

There appear to be two separate questions or concerns one might have after reading this account. First, how accurate are actuarial instruments like the Static-99? In other words, how likely is it on average that individuals given a 40 percent chance of reoffending will reoffend, for example, 38-42 percent of the time? Second, even if we are convinced that the Static-99 is reliable enough to justify the serious consideration of its estimates, is being at a “higher risk” of molesting a child than the average citizen ever sufficient evidence to preemptively imprison someone for a crime he has not yet committed? We have a strong belief that individuals ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty – proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases – which is perhaps why John’s case is so shocking to many of Aviv’s readers.

But maybe we just think that a 1 in 4 chance of reoffending sets the bar too low for preemptive imprisonment.  What if we could predict – yes or no – whether an individual would molest a child and be accurate 99 percent of the time? Would we be justified in imprisoning these individuals to prevent them from committing this crime? Or would that tenth of a percent constitute reasonable doubt that any given individual will commit the crime? Can the standard of reasonable doubt even apply when the crime in question has not yet been committed?

These questions might feel familiar if you’ve ever seen Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report, a sci-fi film in which Tom Cruise plays an agent of the ‘PreCrime Department,’ which prevents crime using the premonitions of psychic ‘precogs.’ In the Minority Report scenario, the justification for arresting a child molester-to-be seems to lie on the understanding that the precogs’ premonitions are completely infallible. And this seems right; if we could say with 100 percent accuracy that someone would commit a terrible crime, we would be justified in imprisoning him. But the gap, however small, between 99 percent and 100 percent seems to be precisely the problem.

Determinists might think that in the future or at least hypothetically we could identify criminals with perfect accuracy; we just don’t have enough information to do it now. But those who believe in free will would reject the possibility of 100 percent accuracy altogether on the belief that the sum total of an individual’s genes, upbringing, and environment and prior states of affairs cannot infallibly predict what he will do in any given situation. And that seems to be the crux of the problem: if there is a chance, however small, that an inmate will choose to “do the right thing” if we release him after he has served his time for all prior and actual offences, it seems a terrible injustice to imprison him for years more.[5]

Predisposition and Impulse Control

In this final section, I’d like to return as promised to the earlier point concerning the moral implications of recognizing pedophilia as an immutable sexual orientation. In an attempt to convince self-identified pedophiles to seek help controlling their behavior, 2005 advertisements in Germany read, “You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behavior.”[6] Similarly, James Cantor, the oft-cited researcher in recent news stories whose work suggests the biological component of pedophilia, has said, “Not being able to choose your sexual interests doesn’t mean you can’t choose what you do.”[7] And perhaps the strongest take-away from this host of articles is that we cannot equate “pedophile” with “child molester.” All these claims suggest that just because individuals like John are attracted to children or have a history of possessing child pornography does not mean that they will actually act upon these desires.
Contained within the first half of this type of argument is the occasionally explicit but almost always implicit suggestion that because pedophiles don’t “choose” to be attracted to children, because they are “born that way,” or because “it’s in their genes,” we ought not blame or fault them for what most people consider to be an appalling desire. This strikes many people as right – we can’t blame people for what they can’t control. The second half of the argument seems to be the other side of that equation – we can blame people for what they can control. Although pedophiles can’t choose their desires, they can choose not to act upon them and it is this behavior for which we can hold them “responsible.”

But what if future studies show that impulse control has a more significant genetic component than we currently think it does? What if some individuals have a significantly greater difficulty suppressing behavior based upon harmful desires? Such individuals did not “choose” to have below average impulse control. Some might even express overwhelming grief at not being better able to control their behavior; they might spend years attempting to master it to no avail. Do we still “blame” them, is it still their “fault,” are they still “guilty,” if they fail to suppress their desires and instead act upon them? (Note that this impulse control problem applies to all desires that would have harmful consequence if acted upon; it has no special relationship to pedophilia.)

We would, it seems, be justified in imprisoning or institutionalizing them for such an act to prevent them from harming others. But the other justifications for punishment – retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence – seem not to apply very well. By definition, a prison sentence couldn’t deter an individual from doing something he can’t stop himself from doing and rehabilitation could not change an immutable characteristic. Retribution would be even more problematically incoherent. We believe that a man must be able to do what he ought to do; we could not condemn a man for doing something that we believe he cannot choose not to do.
This of course returns us to the free will/determinism debate.

Perhaps our entire understanding of crime and justice rests upon a belief that when we do bad things we could always have chosen to do otherwise. Thus this hypothetical might be the point at which arguments about fairness cease to make sense in our current moral framework: some people will do bad things because they were unluckily born less able to control their impulses than others, but this is simply what we mean when we talk about “fault” and “responsibility.”

That took us quite far from our original topic of pedophilia. But hopefully it suggests the implications of this post beyond the issue of pedophilia. Research will continue to identify new genetic components of human qualities and traits and our actuarial instruments will become better at predicting human behavior. Now is a good time to begin thinking about how such advancements will fit within our everyday systems of criminal justice and common morality – and whether and which discoveries would require serious adjustments to the framework of either of these two systems.

Type A: The Insidiously Homophobic Arguments

1. “We need to protect marriage.”
The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.
2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”
Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.
3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”
The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.
4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”
This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.
5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”
This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.
6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”
Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.
7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”
The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.
May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?
8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”
No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.
The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.
Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.
9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”
Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.
10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”
Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.
Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?
11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”
A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.
The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 YouGov survey.
Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.
12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”
For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.
13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”
To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.
14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”
Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.
15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”
Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.

Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their Homophobia

While we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.
16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”
There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.
17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”
If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.
18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”
This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?
19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”
Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.

Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments

20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
Clearly not a Biology graduate.
21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”
Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.
22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”
The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.
People actually use this argument.
23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”
If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.
24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”
Yes, Ann Widdecombe, we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.
25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”
This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.
26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”
Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”
Person B: “That sounds nice.”
Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”
Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”
27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”
Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!
28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”
The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.
29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”
The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.
The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.
30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”
Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.
31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”
Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?

Conclusion

In an attempt to portray his campaign to “preserve traditional marriage” as reasoned and unprejudiced, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has argued that supporters of gay marriage shouldn’t resort to name-calling and accusations of bigotry. But then he is a homophobe and a bigot. There is not a single one of his arguments that does not imply the lesser state of homosexuals, or serve to justify the discrimination.
In fact the recent government proposals are only for the legalisation of civil same-sex marriage, and do not allow for ceremonies to be conducted on religious sites. It is an entirely secular proposal, yet Carey and various churches and church-goers are keen to make the civil rights of homosexuals their business. Given centuries of religious persecution of gay people it is entirely justified to call Lord Carey, the Coalition for Marriage, Christian Concern, and all other proactive opponents of gay marriage “bigots” and their arguments homophobic.

The Breakup Song - The Greg Kihn Band

We had broken up for good just an hour before,
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
And now I'm staring at the bodies as they're dancing 'cross the floor.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
And then the band slowed the tempo, and the music gets you down.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
It was the same old song, with a melancholy sound.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.

They don't write 'em like that anymore.
They just don't write 'em like that anymore.

We'd been living together for a million years,
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
But now it feels so strange out of the atmospheres.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
And then the jukebox plays a song I used to know.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
And now I'm staring at the bodies as they're dancing so slow.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.

They don't write 'em like that anymore.
They don't write 'em like that anymore.

Now I'm winding up staring at an empty glass
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
Cause it's so easy to say that you'll forget your past.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.

They don't write 'em like that anymore.
No, they just don't write 'em like that anymore.
Oh, they don't write 'em like that anymore.
They just don't write 'em like that anymore.
They just don't, no they don't, no no, uh-uh,
They just don't write 'em like that anymore.
They just don't...(fades)

Why Do You Need It?

USA has a gun culture problem.

Did you know you can buy handguns and automatic rifles in USA and depending on the state laws.. depends if you even have to register it, licence it, report it missing or even tell anyone you own one.

Ok, arguments for owning a wepon.

1. Self defence
2. Protection of property
3. Hunting
4. Sports interest
5. Decorative use.

1. Self defence.. ok, i understand that some parts of the USA are "troubled" and the need to carry a wepon is a must if you want to survive a trip to the local 7 - 11 or the post office. and for that, i understand why you would need a gun. But, the most you would ever need is a Tazer, a cattle prod, or a small hand gun such as the .38 smith and wesson or maybe at the very most a colt 1911 or a simular handgun.. why would you need an AR 15 or an M 16 or a M 50 or a Cold Commando or an Uzi 9mm????

2. Protection of Property.. ok, some farmers for instance are waaay out in the wilderness.. and yeah, it is also part of the "self defence" remit.. and yeah, you could be faced with wild bears and wolves and maybe some night stalker shagging your sheep.. and yeah i can understand a hand gun would be pretty crap when your target is 300 meters away. Apart from the fact that you could always just take photos and then report it to the cops and have "evidence" to hand to them..preferably a face and a photo of the crime.. why would you again.. need any weapon at all? I would still agree a hand gun is best here, as really.. is it worth shooting someone for if your sheep get violated or a bear attacks your prize cow?

3. Hunting.. ok, as a sport i would understand.. and most hunters are actually quiet switched on when they choose thier weapon.. usually a single shot rifle or a shotgun.. and they tend to only ever use it for the purpose of hunting. so, i would agree with thier weapons choice. and why they have one. this also includes the "sports interest" so add number 4 here too.

5. Decoration.. again i understand here.. most people would only want the rifle and not the ammunition to shoot anything with and i understand these people as well.


So, with that in mind.. what is "overkill" on "home defence"? .. I would say, anything over a handgun is over kill and only shows how paranoid the home owner is.. its either that or they fancy themselves as Rambo or GI Joe or some Commando or something and the over kill on weapons choice is solely for the purpose of them staying away from the Valium... its either that or they seen one too many Schwartzennegger movies and fancy themselves as the new age Burt Gummer and they think the communists are heading over to wipe the yanks out.. or its either that or they think the Aliens are coming.. conclusion.. Mentally unstable?

And owning a weapon of military spec.. when you are not in the military and not expecting the invasion of aliens and flying sausers is the main problem i feel. And the fact that "anyone" can buy one and own one and not tell the cops that you have one and when they have drinking and drug problems or are paranoid and mentally fucked in the head.. only one outcome is gonna happen.. bang bang... 20 children dead.

Gun Culture USA

(CBS) -- The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Friday was another in a long list of mass shootings in the U.S. this year. Pictures: Mass shootings in 2012 Just three days ago,

22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts opened fire on holiday shoppers at the Clackamas Town Center in Oregon, killing two people and then himself. These recent shootings were just the latest involving multiple victims in public places this year. From 12 people killed in a movie theater in Colorado in July, to three high school students killed in Ohio in February, such public shooting incidents have been far from rare. Crimesider compiled details on 13 of the 2012 shootings, attemping to determine what kind of weapons were used in each incident, and whether the suspects' firearms were obtained legally. However, our list is not comprehensive.

In July, for example, five people were shot at a basketball tournament in New York City; in March, two people were killed and 12 injured in gunfire outside a North Miami funeral home; and in June, three people died and two others were wounded in a shooting outside a Houston nightclub. Not to mention dozens of victims killed on the streets of Chicago and other cities. We steered away from incidents believed to involve gang violence, identifying situations where armed men (and they are all men) opened fire in a public place, killing and/or maiming those gathered there

1. February 22, 2012 Su Jung Health Sauna, Norcross, Ga. Just days before the Su Jung Health Sauna was set to open, 59-year-old Jeong Soo Paek walked into the spa and shot and killed four people, then turned the gun on himself. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the impetus for the shooting may have been financial. The paper reported that the victims were Paek's sisters and their husbands, from whom Paek wanted money.

Weapon used: .45 caliber pistol
Gun bought legally?: Yes.

According to Captain Brian Harr of the Norcross Police Department, Paek owned the gun legally, but Harr did not know where he had obtained it. State gun laws: Georgia does not require a background check for the transfer of a firearm between private parties (such as a transaction at a gun show), according to the Law Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence (LCPGV) Ammunition sales are not regulated, nor is the number of firearms purchased at one time limited. According to a report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in 2006-2009, Georgia exported more guns used in crimes than any other state.

 2. February 27, 2012 Chardon High School, Chardon, Ohio On the morning of Feb. 27, 17-year-old T.J. Lane allegedly walked into the cafeteria of Chardon High School, pulled out a .22 caliber handgun and began shooting at students gathered there before class. Three people were killed and three others wounded. Lane was captured soon after about a mile from the school. Lane has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. A judge ruled he will be tried as an adult.

Weapon used: .22 caliber pistol

Gun bought legally?: Unclear.

The gun did not belong to Lane and Chardon Police Chief Tim McKenna told Crimesider that reports that Lane got the gun from his grandfather's barn are incorrect. However, due to a gag order in the case, he declined to say whose gun it was and whether it was purchased legally. State gun laws: Ohio requires that a gun owner report if his firearm has been lost or stolen, but does not require background checks for gun sales between private parties, nor does it impose a waiting period on firearm purchases, limit the number of guns that can be purchased at one time, or require gun dealers to obtain a license, according to the LCPGV.

3. March 6, 2012 Tulsa Courthouse, Tulsa, Okla. Three people were wounded when 23-year-old Andrew Joseph Dennehy allegedly opened fire outside the Tulsa County Courthouse on the afternoon of March 6. Dennehy was shot by a police officer at the scene, but not killed. On July 2, Dennehy's defense argued that he had since been examined by a psychiatrist and was suffering from psychotic delusions that render him incompetent to stand trial on charges of shooting with intent to kill and reckless conduct with a firearm.

Weapon used: .357 revolver
Gun bought legally?: No.

Dennehy, whom a court had judged to be delinquent as a juvenile, was prohibited from carrying - let along purchasing - a gun. According to first assistant district attorney Jack Thorpe, there is an ongoing investigation into how Dennehy obtained his weapon. State gun laws: According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Oklahoma has among the weakest gun laws in the nations, scoring a 2 of 100 on the organization's rating scale. Oklahoma does not require gun owners to obtain a license or register their firearms. No background check is required for purchase of a firearm between unlicensed individuals, and firearms dealers do not need a state license. In addition, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the state does not require its agencies to add the names of mentally ill individuals to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

4. March 8, 2012 University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. Around 1:40 p.m. on March 8, police say that John F. Shick, 30, entered the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic and began shooting. One person was killed and seven wounded in the attack. Shick, who had reportedly been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was killed in a shootout with police

Weapons used: Shick was armed with two 9mm handguns
Guns bought legally?: No.

According to Allegheny County District Attorney Steve Zappala, Shick bought the weapons he used in New Mexico, which, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, does not require a background check for firearm purchases between private individuals. According to an ATF investigation into the incident, Shick's Beretta 9mm was originally issued to a Texas sheriff's deputy in 1994. The deputy pawned the gun in 2000 and it eventually ended up at a gun show in Albequerque in 2010 where it was bought, without paperwork, and then sold via classified ad a year later. John Karnis, the man who bought the gun via the ad, told the ATF that he placed his own ad in the newspaper when he wanted to sell the gun in April 2011. Shick - who the seller described as "quiet and distant" - bought it from him, without paperwork. The second firearm, an Arsenal Inc 9mm, was originally purchased in Albequerque in 1995 by a doctor who then sold it to a dealer, who then sold it to Karnis. Karnis sold both the Arsenal and the Beretta to Shick in April 2011. Zappala said that Shick previously tried to buy a gun in Oregon, but was unable to do so, possibly because he had once been committed to a psychiatric institution there. Because of that, and another such commitment in New York, Shick would not have been able to buy a gun legally in Pennsylvania. Zappala also said that Shick ordered the ammunition he used from Europe over the internet. State gun laws: Pennsylvania requires a background check for private purchase of a firearm, but does not impose a limit on the number of firearms that can be purchased at one time, nor does the state impose a waiting period or regulate ammunition sales, according to the LCPGV.

5. April 2, 2012 Oikos University , Oakland, Calif. On April 2, One L. Goh, 43, allegedly killed seven people and injured three more when he opened fire at the small Christian college in Oakland. Goh had been a nursing student at the college which catered to Korean immigrants, before withdrawing in 2011. He was reportedly angry that the college had not refunded several thousand dollars of his tuition. Goh was arrested after walking into a nearby grocery store and reportedly saying, "I just shot some people." He has pleaded not guilty to seven counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder. Pretrial for the case is scheduled to begin Oct. 1.

Weapons used: A semiautomatic handgun and four magazines of ammunition
Gun bought legally?: Yes.

The gun was purchased in California about two months prior to the shooting, according to the Oakland Police Department. State gun laws: By most accounts, California has the strictest gun laws in the country. According to the LCPGV, the state imposes a 10-day waiting period on all firearm purchases and in 1999 mandated that waiting periods and other restrictions be extended to purchases made at gun shows. California also bans all large capacity ammunition magazines and most assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles. In 2007, California became the first state to require microstamping of handguns. That's the process of imprinting microscopic characters on firearms that will transfer to bullet casings, thus allowing police to trace bullets found at a crime scene without having to recover the weapon itself.

6. May 30, 2012 Cafe Racer, Seattle, Wash. Just before 11 a.m. on May 30, 40-year-old Ian L. Stawicki allegedly started shooting inside a Seattle café near the University of Washington-Seattle campus. Police say Stawicki killed four people inside the café, which was known as a gathering place for local artists and musicians. According to the Seattle Times, police say Stawicki then shot a woman near the Town Hall and stole her SUV. By 4p.m., he had reportedly abandoned the SUV and soon after being surrounded by police, fatally shot himself in the head.

Weapons used: Stawicki was armed with two .45 caliber semiautomatic handguns
Guns bought legally?: Yes.

Stawicki had legally purchased both guns, as well as two others. He also had a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon. In February 2008 Stawicki was charged with four misdemeanor domestic violence counts, but the charges were later dropped. In her statement, his girlfriend at the time wrote that "starting last winter, he became more violent, breaking my things, losing control of his feelings, there's no pattern." In 2010, he was arrested for allegedly assaulting his brother, though those charges were also dropped, according to the Times. State gun laws: Washington State does not require background checks for the purchase of a firearm between private parties, according to the LCPGV. The National Rifle Association reports that the state does not require gun buyers to have a license or permit, nor do Washington State gun owners have to register their guns. The state does, according to the LCPGV, prohibit some individuals with records of domestic violence from owning firearms.

7. June 9, 2012 Auburn University pool party, Auburn, Ala. During an afternoon pool party in an apartment complex near the Auburn University campus, 22-year-old Desmonte Leonard allegedly got in an argument over a woman and then opened fire, killing three people and injuring three others. Leonard eluded police for several days, and finally turned himself in on June 12. Leonard faces three counts of capital murder, two counts of assault have been filed so far, according to the Associated Press.

Weapons used: Unclear. According to Captain Tom Stoffer of the Auburn Police Department, police have found a firearm they believe may have been used in the shooting and have sent it for testing.
Gun bought legally?: Unclear.

State gun laws: Alabama does not require gun owners to register their firearms, nor does the state impose a waiting period or background check on private purchases, according to the LCPGV. The state also does not prohibit the sale or transfer of assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines. However, according to the NRA, "it is unlawful for a drug addict, habitual drunkard, or one who has been convicted of a crime of violence to own or possess a handgun." Minors are also not permitted to carry or possess handguns.

8. July 17, 2012 Copper Top bar, Tuscaloosa, Ala. During the early morning hours of July 17, 44-year-old Nathan Van Wilkins allegedly opened fire in a crowded bar near the University of Alabama. Seventeen people were injured in the attack but no one was killed. According to the Tuscaloosa News, less than an hour before he arrived at the bar, Wilkins went to a nearby home and shot at a man inside the house, possibly in a case of mistaken identity. Wilkins has been charged with 18 counts of attempted murder.

Weapon used: Unclear. According to Sgt. Kip Hart of the Tuscaloosa Sheriff's Department, Wilkins' gun has not yet been recovered, but he believes it was likely an "AK-47-type rifle."
Gun bought legally?: Unclear.

 State gun laws: Alabama does not require gun owners to register their firearms, nor does the state impose a waiting period or background check on private purchases, according to the LCPGV. The state also does not prohibit the sale or transfer of assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines. However, according to the NRA, in Alabama "it is unlawful for a drug addict, habitual drunkard, or one who has been convicted of a crime of violence to own or possess a handgun." Minors are also not permitted to carry or possess handguns.

9. July 20, 2012 Century 16 movie theater, Aurora, Colo. Just after midnight on July 20, police say James Holmes, dressed in black and sporting nearly head-to-toe tactical garb, set off some sort of smoke bomb inside Theater 9 of the Century 16 movie theater. Holmes allegedly began shooting at the audience, who was there to see a premiere of the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises." Twelve people were killed, 58 others injured, several of whom are still hospitalized. Holmes surrendered to police soon after the massacre in the parking lot behind the theater. His apartment was allegedly "booby-trapped," rigged with what the Aurora police chief described as "incendiary and chemical" devices which authorities disabled or detonated. Holmes is under investigation for first-degree murder and will appear in court on July 31.

Weapons used: Police say Holmes used a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle, a shotgun and a .40 caliber Glock handgun
Guns bought legally?: Yes.

According to Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates, all three of the guns used in the incident, plus a second Glock allegedly found in Holmes' car, were purchased legally in the state of Colorado. In the weeks leading up to the incident, police say Holmes had purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet. State gun laws: Colorado imposes no waiting period to purchase a firearm, nor does it impose a limit on the number of firearms that can be purchased at one time, according to the LCPGV. The state requires mentally ill individuals who are deemed ineligible for purchasing a firearm to be reported to the federal NICS database. In 2000, in the wake of the Columbine High School massacre, the state used a ballot initiative to close the so-called "gun show loophole," in which private sales do not require a background check. However, the state does not prohibit a person from purchasing assault weapons or large capacity magazines. Colorado gun owners do not have to obtain licenses, register their guns, or report lost or stolen guns.

10. August 5, 2012 Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, Oak Creek, Wisc. As worshippers prayed and meditated, 40-year-old Wade Michael Page walked into the temple and opened fire, killing six. Wade, who was reportedly a white supremacist, was killed in a shoot-out with police.

Weapons used: 9mm handgun
Guns bought legally?: Yes.

State gun laws: According to the National Rifle Association, Wisconsin requires no background check nor a license or permit to purchase or carry a firearm.

11. October 21, 2012 Azana Day Spa, Brookfield., Wisc. Radcliffe Franklin Haughton, 45, opened fire in a suburban day spa, killing his wife, Zina Haughton, and two other women, and injuring four others before killing himself. In a written request for a restraining order filed Oct. 8, Zina Haughton said her husband was convinced she was cheating on him and that aside from the acid threat he also vowed to burn her and her family with gas. He said he would kill her if she ever left him or called the police, according to the court papers obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

Weapons used: .40 caliber semiautomatic handgun Guns bought legally?:
Unclear.

State gun laws: According to the NRA, Wisconsin requires no background check nor a license or permit to purchase or carry a firearm.

12. December 11, 2012 Clackamas Town Center, Clackamas, Ore. Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, walked into the mall wearing a hockey-style mask and an ammunition-packed vest and opened fire, killing two people and then himself.

Weapons used: AR-15 rifle
Guns bought legally?: Not by Roberts.

Police say Roberts had stolen the weapon from someone he knew. State gun laws: According to the Brady Campaign, Oregon requires background checks for gun sales at gun shows, but does no require a state license to possess a handgun or handgun registration. The state also does not require firearm owners to report a stolen weapon.

13. December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn. At just after 9:30 a.m., 20-year-old Adam Lanza opened fire inside the K-4th grade school, killing 20 children and six adult before turning a gun on himself. Lanza had also reportedly murdered his mother, Nancy Lanza, before going on his rampage.

Weapons used: Details are still emerging. Initially, police reportedly found two handguns - a Sig Sauer and a Glock - inside the school, and a .223 caliber rifle in a car at the scene. However, authorities now report that all the children killed in the incident were shot multiple times by a semiautomatic rifle.
Guns bought legally?: A federal official tells CBS News that, according to state records, all the weapons Lanza used were bought legally and were registered to his mother.

State gun laws: According to the NRA, Connecticut requires that a person have permit to purchase a handgun, but not rifle. Handguns - but not rifles - must also be licensed. The Brady Campaign calls the state's gun laws "strong."

What Its Like Being Bullied

I was bullied from the age of 9 years till at least my 20th birthday. Yes, even at 20 I was still being picked on. Why? Because I am gay. I was never open about being gay, I didn't have to be. Everyone knew it. Not because I sounded camp, or acted camp. Or even dressed camp. Nope, it was simple. I never had a girlfriend.. That was it.. That was the reason they knew.

It all started when I was 9 years old. I went to a boarding school. At 9 years old I was placed in the middle of hell in the boarding school lifestyle. Nothing prepared me for what was in store for me. Ok, it started out fine. I had a few months where I had to settle into the life. But I never really did. I started to “know” what I was. Well, I didn’t actually know.. I just knew something was “different” I did not seem interested in girls, I didn’t seem interested in hearing the “talk” about girls and relationships and all the bullshit. I was more interested in my best mate, Douglas.

In boarding school.. You all should know that you actually do sleep there don’t you? It’s not like normal school where you can go home at night and hide yourself away into your bedroom and play with yourself. This was eat, sleep, wank, pray, work, dress, shower, shit, cry and laugh with the same people day in day out for months at a time. If you farted in assembly.. You not only had the teasing in school.. But at night as well.. In the bathroom, in the freaking breakfast meal times. There was nothing that nobody knew about me nor me them. I knew who cried at night, who wanked, who snored, who farted, who hugs a teddy bear and kisses it goodnight, I know who has nightmares and who sleep walks.. That’s how close it was in boarding school.

So, as a gay.. With hormones going wild.. You can understand my frustration can’t you?.. I mean.. It would have been better putting me in the girl’s dorm and sleep with the girls.. But, there would be a problem I would be raped at night or something. Trust me, the girls had nothing to fear from me.. You get me! But.. As rules have it.. I was placed in a dormitory full of boys (30 to be exact) and I was so.. What’s the word for it?.. Embarrassed? Shocked? Ashamed? Fearful of letting one slip? Afraid of showing some movement downstairs? .. That I became so introverted and secluded from the rest of the school.. I was a 100% pure bred LONER! Not that I had trouble making friends.. I had loads of friends.. Some I still talk to even today.. But.. It was me who stopped me from making friends.. I stopped myself to prevent me giving away that deep dark secret… being GAY!

So, me, the loner, the one who sits quiet in the corner, the one who is afraid of everyone, had to come up with a “reason” to stop people talking to me. I know.. I will become the biggest bitch in the UK. Fuck you all, you fuckers! I will make sure I am un liked. That way. I won’t slip up and then face years and forever of bullying because I managed to get a hard on in just the wrong place and time. Yeah.. That was it. That’s how I can do it. That’s how I was at 9 years of age. Eventually though.. I did start talking to people and I did make 2 friends. Douglas and Barry. Two dear friends of mine even today. Nope, they are not gay.. They are completely normal. The reason why I made such good friends? They were on the same level as me. We shared so many character traits that we just clicked.. And with my secret.. I could hide amongst them soo fucking well.. Hey.. They walked around with their hands in their pants.. It was “a cool thing”.. Me.. I could do the same.. It was a “hide that stiffy thing”.

So then the bulling started. It started off at first with comments like.. “Why ain’t you got a girlfriend?” “Why do you not shower with us?” (Communal showers) “Why don’t you go out with her?” and every time I made my excuses.. It started out with “You’re fridged” “You are afraid” “You are weird” then it soon developed into… “Are you gay?” or words to that effect.. And I kept saying no.. But they just didn’t believe me.
The day that it turned physical is a day I will never forget. I was at boarding school.. I was now 12 years old. And already I was the “Freak” of the school. I was called that because of the following.
I was 90% a Loner.. Only ever talking to two people for 5 mins a day, and that was just because we sat next to each other.

I was the kid who (even after several offers from various girls) never kissed or touched a girl intimately

I was the kid who sat in the corner and had my head in my lap all the time.

I was the kid who purposefully tried showering and bathing alone and even skipping a shower to avoid uncontrollable reactions in my shorts.

I was the one who only ever liked being beside another boy and when a girl stood next to me I walked away
I was the kid who couldn’t do sports very well


So, I was the freak. The gaybo, the queer, the homo, the loner. I was the boy who only ever really talked to my school form teacher (tutor) Mrs. Mandy. She was my mother in school. She knew things about me that even I didn’t. And I think she knew what secret I was hiding. And she was the best teacher in the whole world. She used to bring me cookies and give me sweets and hug me and smile when I walked past and always always asked me if I was ok and if I needed anything and that I could talk anytime if I wanted.
Well.. That day.. I was 12 and the school scout group was on their way to a scout camp. I was present as well, seeing how I was in the scouts. Well.. anyways, the camp was called Linnet Clough… just outside Manchester. It’s a regular campsite for my boarding school. Anyways.. It was some sort of county scout camp.. Long story short.. We set up the patrol tent.. An 8 man tent that my patrol was going to sleep in.. I did insist on a separate tent.. But the scout master insisted back that I stop being such a pussy. Yeah.. Those exact words. So. I looked on a Douglas and Barry and several other members of my patrol.. The “Tigers” and then at the sleeping arrangements.. They had already set out their sleeping bags.. I sat there on my rucksack and looked on in horror.. Yeah sure.. I WANTED to sleep that close to someone I actually wanted sex with.. But not now, not as a kid. Not as someone who was turned on by a gnat landing on my cock.. Figure of speech .. I wasn’t actually turned on by a gnat.. What I mean is.. The slightest touch and up I came. I couldn’t help it.. My hormones were going fucking crazy. Sure, all boys went through that.. But at least they got hard and they blamed it on some girl and had the permission to express his love and hard on with a wank and screaming out that girls name.. Me.. Who was I getting hard over? .. Yeah.. The ones watching me with mouths open in shock… FAGGOT! (Even though they probably didn’t even know or suspect or care)

So, the scout master comes over.. “Why are you sat there like a dweeb?! Up pack your ruck sac!” I looked around at the scout master staring at me as I was miles away watching Douglas. I stood up. I walked over to the tent.. And Douglas said to me.. “Here, you can sleep here” I looked at Douglas and found that he actually “Reserved” a place for me. Oh, very nice of you.. Asshole I was thinking. I was more than happy sleeping at the end.. And when people were asleep, I would quietly roll out the door and sleep under the stars. But now.. I am in the middle of all these boys.. All probably wanting to snuggle up at night.. I was sooo in denial about my true feelings.. Any normal gay would say fuck yeah.. But me.. I was fuck no!

So the night came. And we were all in our sleeping bags.. And the “talk” started. You know.. Hormonal boys talk.. Probably gonna lead to a “cum in the cup race” if you don’t know what that is.. Don’t ask.. But if you must know.. It’s the most gay thing non gay boys do and will always say they are not gay for doing it when in actual fact.. Its soo fucking gay it’s unreal.. Basically.. you all wank into a cup in a circle and the last one to “cum” or “orgasm” has to either drink the cup filled with semen or what ever they could produce OR face a forfeit.

Guess what.. That’s what happened.. Now.. Long story short.. I lost. I did not loose on purpose.. Although that’s what was eventually suggested.. I lost because I was so well trained in the art of NOT being gay and getting all emotional about masturbating and shit.. Even though I really wanted to.. That I was too nervous or what ever to even attempt to be first.. Besides.. Whilst they all wanked over a grotty porn mag with big tits.. I had nothing to wank over apart from 10 boys hanging out in front of me.. And I could hardly look could I? I could hardly stare at them and get myself off.. So.. I had to wank with nothing to stimulate.. So.. Well.. I failed to produce.

Now.. This is where I have to stop you.. You are probably thinking.. Gay.. Yep, cup full of cum.. Yep… would drink it without any hesitation…. WRONG.. I may be gay but then, I did not fancy some straight boys cum in my mouth.. It was like snot .. Slime.. What ever disgusting thing it was.. It was gross.. I refused to put it in my mouth.. They tried to make me.. They held me down and poured it into my mouth.. I tried to scream but was too busy gagging. “You fucking pussy” they said.. Douglas tried backing me up.. “Leave him alone” then it came, “Faggot” said with anger in his voice. It was this kid called Paul. I was laid down on the sleeping bags.. Still with my pants down.. Still with the cum over my face. Almost crying. Douglas.. He stepped in and said.. “Leave him alone” and basically moved between me and Paul. Then they started fighting.. Ok.. Not really fighting.. More like.. Paul had him on his ass quickly and said don’t fucking dare. Douglas was not a fighter. He wasn’t tough. And he was definitely not gay. But Paul.. Was team captain for the U13’s rugby team and swimming team.. He was what the yanks would call.. A Jock.. A sports bred kid.. All muscle and no brains. It was 8 to 2.. Me and Douglas were out numbered.

So, they all crowded me and started taunting me. To cut to the facts.. And not to go too deep into it.. I was stripped.. Slapped and then held down whilst they spat on me. Then, one of the other boys said.. Put the two faggots together. I was forced to lie on top of Douglas and although no actual rape occurred.. I was made to simulate having sex with him. Including being forced to do the motions on Douglas. All whilst they laughed and joked and tormented me and Douglas.

After that, I left the scout group. I hardly ever talked to Douglas again, I hardly ever talked to anyone again. In fact. From then, it was 10 years since I spoke to Douglas again on a social net working site.. And even then.. We never really talked.. Just the kind hello how are you? And that’s it. I eventually left that school and was taken to another boarding school at 13 years of age. By now, I was so fucked up in the head and afraid of everything and traumatized that I started to not care anymore.

In the new school.. (Which I didn’t stay all that long) I got into 26 fights, all of which they started on me for being gay. By now, I couldn’t keep it secret.. It was obvious that I was gay.. Even though I never even said I was. And I was in one fight standing up for a kid who was probably also gay.. He was being bullied one time and I stepped in and defended him.. Timothy was his name. I got my ass kicked.. And never even got a thank you for helping timothy out. I was then moved from that school to a normal comprehensive. Where by now, I was totally unable to make any friends. The only friendship I could make now, at the age of 14, was with boys who were 11 to 12 years old. Only because they would never give me any shit and would never try to bully me. But this only caused further bullying by my own age group and above.

One time in PE at this new school. I tried skipping a shower afterwards.. But was caught by the teacher and forced to take a shower. And to this day, I regret it.. The inevitable happened.. I got a hard on in the shower. It just happened.. I couldn’t help it. Well.. Instantly.. The whole school knew now.. And I was subject to a daily bloody nose, I think I cracked a rib when I was pushed down the stairs in the school during lunch break.. I was constantly pushed around, punched, spat at. I had my stuff stolen away from me that I started resorting to not taking any lunch with me nor money for lunch. And eventually.. I skived school almost every other day. By the time I was 15, I had already skived off at least 80% of the year. And now, the school was complaining about my absence. And although I had letters home.. I could no longer keep that hidden from my dad as they stated that they were going to do a home visit.

Time for drastic action.. I ran away. I went 200 miles south to my mum’s house.. (Parents divorced) and I stated for my safety I needed to stay with her from now on. After a few too’s and fro’s I was eventually allowed to stay with my mum. By now I had missed so much school.. That I was placed 2 years back in my new school at my mums.. I was 16 going on 17.. And just starting my GCSE’s.. Which, if you don’t know.. By 16 – 17.. I should have completed them. So.. Gee.. Now I am a 16 year old in a class full of 14 year olds.. How humiliating.. Now, you may think.. That’s wrong.. That shouldn’t happen.. How the fuck did the school agree to that?.. Well.. With a mother who is a school governor.. You can get the idea now.

So, me, an old person in the school yeah? No chance of bullying now yeah? No one will fuck with someone who is 2 years older than them yeah?... wrong.. All it means now is I no longer get harassed by one person.. But now a gang of them and their older brothers as well.

I always wondered how they knew. I never told them a damn thing. I never let it slip.. I don’t sound gay.. I don’t even dress gay.. I don’t show anyone I am gay.. Most of the people I know now and some back then even are shocked to know I am gay.. Never! No way! That’s what they say.. But back then it was different.. They somehow knew.. Or was it.. It wasn’t anti gay bullying.. It was something else? Naa.. It was anti gay. I know it was. Being called faggot and queer and homo and all the other shit they came out with.. Yeah.. It was anti gay bullying.. And the only reason why I think they did it.. Was the fact I never had a girlfriend. And they all did. I never did what they did on a Friday night.. I was more comfortable with a single friend than I was with a girl. Besides which, I think I only ever had 3 friends then and everyone else was just against me.
I know I am being vague here about this “What’s it like being bullied” .. but its hard to talk about and most I have forgotten about. Or I don’t wish to talk about it at this moment in time. But I will tell you basically how I felt all my childhood. Leaving out what actually happened..

I would wake up in the morning and not want to get out of bed nor face the world. I would always find an excuse to not do something. And skiving was a main part of my childhood when I could get away with it. In boarding school I had no choice but to attend school. But in normal school I tried to stay away as much as I could. When I could. When I did go out of the house. To school or to the shops or to a mates house. I was always on the look out for anyone who would possibly hurt me. I hated walking along the path and seeing a group of 3 or more boys walking towards me. I hated going into school and having the “greeting party” there waiting for me. I hated the break times when I would have to run (literally) to safety of the library or the toilets before being spotted by the bullies.

I hated the fact that after school, my bike was stolen all the time, or moved. And that not 10 feet out of the school gates I was harassed and punched by the greeting party. I hated the fact I couldn’t go to the fun fair for fear of being beaten up. I hated the fact that I couldn’t even go to the shop without meeting someone and getting my ass kicked. I hated the fact that I have had stones thrown at me and knives pulled out on me and leather belts wrapped around my back and legs. I hated the fact that I saw graffiti around the school with my name on it saying I was gay, homo, faggot, queer, bent, cock sucker, fairy, princess. And I hated the death threats (even though none of them were ever attempted on me). I hated the way that I had to force myself to be a loner and stay away from society. I hated not being able to go to the pub, when I was 18 because of the fear of being beaten up. I hated the fact that even at 17 – 19.. I felt it was important that I stayed home and locked myself away in my bedroom.

I hated not having loads of friends. I hated hearing the police could “do nothing about it”. I hated the fact that one time a large gang harassed my mum (at the time almost in her 60’s) at her own doorstep, trying to get me outside so they could beat me up in front of her. I hated the fact that I had to give up jobs because the anti gay comments were making me so angry that I would lose my job if I said what I really wanted to say to them. I hated the fact that one time I was “sent” a girl around to my house to ask me out and then tell me that if I didn’t go outside with her and make out.. I would be beaten up the next day at school. Only to then see a group of twats looking over at us and laughing. I hated the letters sent to me telling me to kill myself. I hated the emails. The comments in the street about me being gay and that I should leave the town for ever. And I hate the fact that when I did find a friend that they too were bullied to the point that they were forced to break the friendship from me for fear of their own life. I hated the fact that every time I tried telling someone, they were not interested, didn’t care, didn’t listen, didn’t try hard enough to stop it, or basically thought I was lying.

Now, I am out as a gay.. Only just.. At aged 30 something. And all of a sudden.. Everyone wants to be my friend and are totally cool with it. Some say.. wow, I never knew.. Some say don’t ever talk to me again.. Some have totally disowned me.. Some have become friends with me and are asking me how come I never said anything before.. It’s simply put.. The world around me are a bunch of hypocrites and liars.. And people who pretended they never knew or didn’t suspect.. And some people are so gay friendly that it beggars belief that they never stood up for me back then. Yeah, I have had my ups and downs.. pain and misery.. happy and joyful times. But is it any wonder I am the way I am today?

14-Year Old Gay Iowa Teen Bullied To Death – Report

 A 14-year old gay teen died by suicide Saturday in Primghar, Iowa, after coming out as gay and being bullied for months, according to a report. The Eldridge Funeral Home lists a short obituary for Kenneth James Weishuhn Jr., stating Kenneth J. Weishuhn Jr. passed away on Sunday, April 15. Primghar, Iowa is a small town of about 909, according to the 2010 census.

There are no other news reports yet, but there is a Facebook group created in his memory.

One entry notes, “Its sad to see how people cannot just see past a persons identity and just see them as a human,” while another reads, “You took his happiness away from him..,” and another, “No one deserves to be bullied! My sympathies to the family and friends of Kenneth! And to the kids that bullied him hope you sleep okay knowing that you drove a young man to an early fate, you should be ashamed of yourself!”
A Facebook page which appears to be that of the same Kenneth James Weishuhn lists his nickname as Rodney. The last entry was March 30.  A tribute video, below, was published to YouTube yesterday.

A Pinterest page with Kenneth James Weishuhn’s name says, “ I love Louis Tomlinson, A lot.” One section, titled, “When I get married. (:” has several photos of same-sex couples. Another, titled, “Inspiration,” offers several “It gets better” images, and a quote from Glee star Chris Colfer:

There’s nothing wrong with you. There’s a lot wrong with the world you live in.

To which Weishuhn added, “I hope so.”
Another image reads, “Never be bullied into silence.”