Virginia Tech Campus Shut Down - Shooting Incident

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

In large part, "mentally ill" is just a social construct to explain behavior we don't understand. For that matter, so is "evil."

While this sounds good, it is not an accurate depiction of either our understanding of mental illness or our philosophical understanding of evil. The entire field of mental health care exists to explain and treat abnormal behavior, and we have a vastly more thorough understanding of how mental illness causes behavior because of such research.

It's not that we don't understand the behavior of individuals like this murderer -- I would argue that many folks with a mental health background can provide solid explanations for his antisocial and sociopathic behavior. There are, ultimately, reasons, be they chemical, environmental, and/or social.

On the other hand, understanding mental illness doesn't always mean that we're able to treat it effectively, regardless of how well we understand the reasons for the abnormal behavior. And the issue of responsibility becomes very tricky to apply universally when dealing with behaviors that in many cases are outside of the control of an afflicted person.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists who would use violence as a bargaining chip, even though blah blah blah blah blah

Um, don't post again for another 4 months pls, kthxbye.

[Groundhog]

I get a real kick out of all the pro-gun guys we're seeing on TV over here saying that this crisis could have been averted if more folks on campus were carrying guns around. That's the most messed up logic I've ever heard. Clearly a mass-gun fight on campus would have led to less bloodshed...

What's the ratio of legally bought guns being used for self defense as opposed to legally bought guns being used for crime I wonder? I'm sure it's tilted very heavily to the one direction.

[NoMyths]

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cSuidxE8os

[molson]

Looking ahead, it really sucks that VT is going to have this associated with their school forever now.

[King of New York]

What is truly shocking to me is the number of bloggers and web-site posters blaming the shooting victims for the outcome of the massacre, on account of the victims' alleged cowardice! Here's one example that I am cutting and pasting from the MSNBC message boards:

“Our culpability in this situation, as a society, has been mischaracterized. Where we fell down was not in our lack of coddling this idiot or some misstep in guiding his defective and deviant urges towards more constructive ends. We are a society based on self-sufficiency, and those who are not self-sufficient are intrinsically barred from being full members of our society. Where we fell down was not Cho. We fell down with everyone else in that classroom. We taught them to be cowards, and then told them it was good that they were."

I feel physically sick when I read this stuff. If people want to fantasize that they would have somehow overpowered the gunman, well, that's their business, but to call other people cowards for not acting in accordance with one's own fantasy world is just, well, despicable.

The 75-year-old professor who held the door so that his students could get out the window seems to me to have demonstrated ample heroism. So did the profs who went toward the gunfire, not away from it, to try to intervene.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I feel physically sick when I read this stuff. If people want to fantasize that they would have somehow overpowered the gunman, well, that's their business, but to call other people cowards for not acting in accordance with one's own fantasy world is just, well, despicable.

I mean this in the most completely non-ironic way possible, with a great deal of sadness and disgust behind it:

Welcome to Hollywood.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by King of New York

What is truly shocking to me is the number of bloggers and web-site posters blaming the shooting victims for the outcome of the massacre, on account of the victims' alleged cowardice! Here's one example that I am cutting and pasting from the MSNBC message boards:

“Our culpability in this situation, as a society, has been mischaracterized. Where we fell down was not in our lack of coddling this idiot or some misstep in guiding his defective and deviant urges towards more constructive ends. We are a society based on self-sufficiency, and those who are not self-sufficient are intrinsically barred from being full members of our society. Where we fell down was not Cho. We fell down with everyone else in that classroom. We taught them to be cowards, and then told them it was good that they were."
.

This guy's most likely last heroic act was making it to the bathroom when the nightlight blew out.

[Ksyrup]

This is precisely the lack of coordination I'm talking about:

Rules Should Have Barred Weapon Purchase

Apr 19 08:42 PM US/Eastern By MATTHEW BARAKAT Associated Press Writer

McLEAN, Va. (AP) - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.


Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

"On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law," said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The 23-year-old South Korean immigrant was evaluated by a psychiatric hospital after he was accused of stalking two women and photographing female students in class with his cell phone. His violence-filled writings were so disturbing that professors begged him to get counseling.

The language of the ruling by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett almost identically tracks federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those rules bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective."

The definition outlined in the regulations is "a determination by a court ... or other lawful authority that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness ... is a danger to himself or to others."
Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment.

The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated."

George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records.

McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases.
Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

"The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law."

Also Thursday, the owner of an Internet gun store based in Green Bay, Wis., told The Associated Press that Cho used his Web site to purchase one of the weapons used in the shootings. Cho paid $268 for the gun.

Eric Thompson, who runs http://www.thegunsource.com , said the Walther .22-caliber handgun was then shipped to a Virginia pawnbroker so Cho could pick it up.

Thompson said he had no idea his business was involved until he was contacted Tuesday by ATF agents.
"I just feel absolutely terrible that this tragedy even happened in the first place," he said.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is precisely the lack of coordination I'm talking about:

So "better coordination" means a stronger federal government, essentially? (One entity in control of all gun laws, with power to commandeer state officials into following them, and one entity in charge of mental health policies)?

I disagree, but at least I'm starting to understand.

[Easy Mac]

Fox News tells us that the killer was possessed by Satan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266860,00.html

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Fox News tells us that the killer was possessed by Satan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266860,00.html

Gee wiz, do they let just anybody blog on foxnews these days?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Gee wiz, do they let just anybody blog on foxnews these days?

Not Satan

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267088,00.html

Fox News announced on the air late Thursday morning that it would no longer air Cho's material, saying "sometimes you change your mind."

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Likewise, I'm just throwing out some quick math, maybe I'm missing something here but best recent figure I can find is that the median police officer salary is about $45,000

Looks like about 27,000 full-time students currently at VaTech, so $100 each = 2,700,000 or enough for 60 full time police (not counting supervisors, overhead, etc). From the looks of the campus, etc., that wouldn't be nearly enough to put one in every building. Even if you overlook the startup costs, and just have tuition increase cover the salaries, you'd be looking at several times that amount best I can figure.

I've heard the number of buildings reported as 100. And you'd have to consider 24/7 coverage, so that increases cost also.

[Peregrine]

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but I found this article fascinating.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...612368,00.html


Especially this section:

"Throughout the slow, deliberate smolder that leads up to the shootings, all mass killers also tend to disengage from the people around them. More and more of their emotional energy becomes consumed with planning their assault and, tellingly, with what often appears to be a newfound fascination with firearms and other weapons. "The quiet is the problem," says Welner. "The anger and rage just get bigger and bigger and seep into a fantasy life, and the person becomes increasingly alienated and isolated and contemptuous."

The fully annealed killer who emerges from this process is a cold and deliberate thing. The time he's spent rehearsing his carnage is a big part of what causes the actual execution of it to appear so disciplined and free of emotion — or even pleasure. That, however, does not mean that mass murder is conducted entirely without feeling. For the killer, the powerlessness that came from a sense of victimization has been replaced by its perfect opposite — a heady experience that may produce an implacable serenity on the one hand, or the eerily jocular banter that surveillance tapes picked up between Harris and Klebold in Columbine on the other. Making the gunman calmer still is the fact that he has long since convinced himself that the world brought the carnage on itself. Because nobody is exempt from membership in that world, nobody's exempt from the line of fire either. "You forced me into a corner. The decision was yours," were among the most disturbing lines in the suicide videos that Cho left behind, but they may also have been the least original.

However long it takes the killing to play out, when the crime is finally over, the shooter almost never expects to survive. Indeed, he typically doesn't want to. Achieving the state of nihilistic certainty that's necessary to commit the killings is one thing; crossing back to the world of the living afterward may be well-nigh impossible. "They are both homicidal and suicidal," says Pollack. "After the attack they are simply waiting for the next step, which they assume is the police shooting them." Most killers don't wait even that long, taking their own lives before whatever killing room they have barricaded themselves inside can be stormed. "

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I've heard the number of buildings reported as 100. And you'd have to consider 24/7 coverage, so that increases cost also.

I still think it's a bad idea, but for this scenario you wouldn't have to add 24/7 coverage, just the ~12 hours a day classes are in session. It sounds like they have enough officers to patrol for the vandalism, although I can tell you it really isn't hard to sneak into buildings on a campus at night at all.

A little backround, as I don't know VaTech specifics, but as a fellow large land-grant institution UMass' security is probably fairly similar. It consists of RA's/Campus Security (unarmed students) in the dorms, then State Police Cadets around campus, mostly just out of the academy and in training. They do have guns, but they're mostly idiots who quite often do more to escalate the situation than defuse it. They also spend most of their time going after underage drinking and minor traffic violations, which is what the administration wants them to do.

The UMass campus is much smaller and more contained than VT's, class buildings in about a mile by mile area with a road surrounding it that only has 3 access points. Dorms extend about 1/2 a mile outside that perimeter surrounded by another set of roads then the town of Amherst. A month or two ago they passed an agreement with the surrounding town to allow cross-jurisdictional arrests, and the Amherst PO is generally more professional and better staffed than their UMass cohorts.

Last year they also began allowing police to patrol inside the dorms in the hallways, which led to a sharp increase in arrests for smoking marijuana, civil liberties complaints, and tear gas containers thrown on my floor for no apparent reason. (Students here perceive the cops as glorified hall monitors spending their time cracking down on fun rather than protecting them while cops here hate the students because they feel disrespected. This leads to quite interesting confrontations when there are "riots"/large gatherings and the riot police come in with their pepper-spray bullets and horses.) Regardless, the main point is that while something like Cho's spree could have easily happened here (with the disclaimer I would never do so and hesitation because I don't want to get suspended/arrested, I know I or anyone with similar knowledge of campus could easily do better than him) almost none of the students want more security, and in fact most would prefer less. Or, more accurately, a re-shifting of priorities.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I still think it's a bad idea, but for this scenario you wouldn't have to add 24/7 coverage, just the ~12 hours a day classes are in session. It sounds like they have enough officers to patrol for the vandalism, although I can tell you it really isn't hard to sneak into buildings on a campus at night at all.

A little backround, as I don't know VaTech specifics, but as a fellow large land-grant institution UMass' security is probably fairly similar. It consists of RA's/Campus Security (unarmed students) in the dorms, then State Police Cadets around campus, mostly just out of the academy and in training. They do have guns, but they're mostly idiots who quite often do more to escalate the situation than defuse it. They also spend most of their time going after underage drinking and minor traffic violations, which is what the administration wants them to do.

Well, you'd "need" 24/7 for dorms, but I see your point with academic buildings.

I can't speak for VT, but I can speak for another Virginia campus - W&M. They don't even have the state police you mention, just campus police where there are oh.. idano... 5-8 police cars for the entire force - on a campus of 5000+.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

So "better coordination" means a stronger federal government, essentially? (One entity in control of all gun laws, with power to commandeer state officials into following them, and one entity in charge of mental health policies)?

I disagree, but at least I'm starting to understand.

Um....no. How you could get that out of what that article was all about is beyond me. How about a consistent standard to be applied acorss both federal and state agencies so that one standard isn't more or less stringent than the other, resulting in one or the other not being in a position to share information that wouldn't be a question if they were applying the same standard.

Are you purposely mischaracterizing the point, or not reading? There's nothing in that article that suggests "stronger federal government," and all I've been saying for 3 days is "better coordination." And that's what the article's point is:


"The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I get a real kick out of all the pro-gun guys we're seeing on TV over here saying that this crisis could have been averted if more folks on campus were carrying guns around. That's the most messed up logic I've ever heard. Clearly a mass-gun fight on campus would have led to less bloodshed...
.

Let me preface this by saying I am not an NRA member, do not mind increased gun legislations/restrictions/requirements (ex. certified training), do not believe I am in Hollywood and do have 2 weapons.

There is no doubt that if I was in that building and had my weapon, I would have made sure the people around me were protected to the best of my ability.

Yes, I agree that guns owned by responsible and trained (ex. not saying SWAT here) citizens may well have lowered the number of fatalities.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Well, you'd "need" 24/7 for dorms, but I see your point with academic buildings.

I can't speak for VT, but I can speak for another Virginia campus - W&M. They don't even have the state police you mention, just campus police where there are oh.. idano... 5-8 police cars for the entire force - on a campus of 5000+.

I'd estimate that ratio is about the same, if not lower up here. But you do have to factor in the town police to an extent because there's literally 20 feet between some dorms and residential neighborhoods.

The dorms are a tricky situation vis a vis privacy issues. There have always been security and officers in the entrance/sign-in desk, at least at night, more so in the high-rises (22 stories, ~30 students a floor, ~500 students total.) But they aren't allowed to search bags and only recently were allowed in the hallways without being called by someone. I'd hesitate to call it a home or even say there is a direct parallel with apartment buildings in a city, but especially as a state university there are certain constitutional issues to go along with the logistical nightmares.

I think we're in agreement here that while campus police departments are generally woefully unprepared to deal with this type of situation, the alternative just isn't feasible regardless of merit. (And on the merit I'd much rather have the freedom to walk around than have to present an ID card everywhere at every building.)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think we're in agreement here that while campus police departments are generally woefully unprepared to deal with this type of situation, the alternative just isn't feasible regardless of merit. (And on the merit I'd much rather have the freedom to walk around than have to present an ID card everywhere at every building.)

Yup. Definitely wasn't disagreeing with you, just painting the picture from what I know of in VA. W&M doesn't even have security in the dorms at any time of day or night, just the badge swipe. But I know I've heard at the larger schools in VA with larger dorms (W&M dorms can't be higher than 3 stories) they have the sign-ins, etc.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Geez, Grandpa didn't hold back on his grandson. You know it's bad when your grandfather calls you a SOB after you're dead.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstor...name_page.html

SON OF A BITCH
EXCLUSIVE: Grandad's anger at uni murderer
Graham Brough In South Korea 20/04/2007

THE grandfather of Cho Seung-Hui said yesterday: "Son of a bitch. It serves him right he died with his victims."

Kim Hyang-Sik, 82, said he had a doom-laden dream of Cho's parents the night of his murderous rampage - and woke to hear the news of the massacre and his grandson's death.

He watched Cho's sick video of himself holding a gun to his head.

His sister Kim Yang-Sun, 85, who also saw it, told the Mirror that afterwards her brother was so distraught he had "gone away for a few days to calm himself down and avoid more questions".

She too repeatedly referred to the killer as "son of a bitch" or "a***hole" and said his mother Kim Hyang-Yim had problems with him from infancy.

Yang-Sun revealed the eight-year-old was diagnosed as autistic soon after his family emigrated to the US.

She said: "He was very quiet and only followed his mother and father around and when others called his name he just answered yes or no but never showed any feelings or motions.

"We started to worry that he was autistic - that was the big concern of his mother. He was even a loner as a child.

"Soon after they got to America his mother was so worried about his inability to talk she took him to hospital and he was diagnosed as autistic."

Yang-Sun spoke at her tiny one roomed shack inside a vinyl farm shelter in the Gohyang area of South Korea's capital Seoul.

The family had stayed there the night before they emigrated in 1992. Yang-Sun said Cho's mother had been reluctant to marry her older husband.

She said: "She had five brothers and sisters and she was the second eldest child. She took care of them after she graduated from high school, which meant a lot of self-sacrifice.

"Hyang-Yim was a full-time house person on one of her parents' small farms outside Seoul. She stayed at home like that for years and was still single at home when she was 29.

"We became worried that she was spending too much time at home with her brothers and sisters and family and getting to old for a husband.

"So the family decided to force her into a blind date to find a husband. She met Cho Sung-Tae on that date. He was 10 years older at 39 and still single too. They decided to get married soon after that.

"She didn't want to but her family insisted because we thought she was getting past the right age and it would be good for her.

"Her husband was very serious and quiet and careful with money. He was not very sociable and not very friendly to his mother-in-law and father-in-law.

"After they were married he went away twice to Saudi Arabia in the 80s to try to make some money in the construction boom. He came back with about £2,000, which was enough to buy a small house in Seoul. He also ran a second-hand bookstore. His mother was living in the States on a long term visit to stay with his sister. She asked him to bring his family to live there.

"His sold the house to pay for the emigration costs and rented instead but there were lots of delays and eventually the whole process to get the permissions and organise things took eight years.

"By that time the money from the house was nearly gone. They were barely making ends meet so they had nothing to lose and had this idea of the American dream where there was a lot of money to be made."

She went on: "The reaction of my brother was that Seung-Hui was a troublemaker and it served him right that he died because he caused his mother a lot of problems. He was more worried about his daughter.

"He spoke to a few reporters to express sympathy to victims' families on behalf of our family but now he has gone away. He is 82 and lives quietly on a small farm and all this is too much for him."

Other relatives admitted Cho's parents had always been aware of his problems but had neither the time nor money for specialist help.

His uncle Chan Kim, 56, said: "He wasn't like a normal kid. We were worried about him not talking.

"Both his parents knew he had mental problems but they were poor and they couldn't send him to a special hospital in the United States.

"His mother and sister were asking his friends to help instead.

"His parents worked and did not have time to look after his condition and didn't give him special treatment.

"They had no time or money to look after his special problem even though they knew he was autistic."

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cSuidxE8os

Inspiring stuff.

Edit: As for the arming everyone and their grandmother argument...I'm not bashing America here or anything, but what in hell kind of country is it where arming students on a college campus is even a debate? That to me is just crazyness.

[Tim Tellean]

Since I am a Virginia resident and know 2 of the students killed Gary has graciously decided to help out with a donation.

In Remembrance...
Posted : Friday April 20 2007

Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine has declared today a statewide day of mourning in Virginia for the horrific tragedy that took place on the campus of Virginia Tech on Monday. For the Governor's official statement please click here. We would like our community to also take a minute today to remember the victims and their families. If you are interested, a memorial fund has been established by Virginia Tech and you can find more details on that here. Wolverine Studios will be donating a portion of all sales through this weekend to the fund.

[Leonidas]

Thanks NBC. Listening to BBC Radio this morning with the topic of the day being "What do you think about the media showing these videos?" The average email or call-in went something like this: "I am utterly repulsed. How typically American to glorify the event in such a way. I'll tell you what, if Americans don't change their ways and ban guns then they will deserve this sort of thing over and over." I was pretty POd to here all that crap. I'm an American who was just as appalled as anyone else was that NBC ran it, but now suddenly I'm held culpable in England for something I would do anything to stop from happening ever again. Great, just f-ing great. So much for responsible journalism.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Why are you just blaming NBC? Every major network, and a majority of other media outlets all did the same. And don't give me they got the package first. Everyone of the other outlets could have shelved it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

...but now suddenly I'm held culpable in England for something I would do anything to stop from happening ever again.

Dude, some perspective. This is the same country where the journalists union is boycotting Israeli products because somebody kidnapped a reporter in Gaza. Logic doesn't seem to be one of the strong suits, I'd take their reaction with an appropriate grain of salt.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Everyone of the other outlets could have shelved it.

And they didn't, because they SHOULDN'T have.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Inspiring stuff.

Edit: As for the arming everyone and their grandmother argument...I'm not bashing America here or anything, but what in hell kind of country is it where arming students on a college campus is even a debate? That to me is just crazyness.

I don't think it's fair to call it a "real debate" - it's nothing new, there's an element who has always shared that opinion. There's also an element who feels protesting at a gay victim's funeral is a good idea. We have 'em all in the USA, isn't not fair to label us based on any one view.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Um....no. How you could get that out of what that article was all about is beyond me. How about a consistent standard to be applied acorss both federal and state agencies so that one standard isn't more or less stringent than the other, resulting in one or the other not being in a position to share information that wouldn't be a question if they were applying the same standard

Consistent Standard = Federal Standard, or I AM missing something. Unless you think everyone's going to agree on standards.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Dude, some perspective. This is the same country where the journalists union is boycotting Israeli products because somebody kidnapped a reporter in Gaza. Logic doesn't seem to be one of the strong suits, I'd take their reaction with an appropriate grain of salt.

I'm not talking about an official BBC response. I'm talking about the responses from their listeners. Oh I could utterly kill the British media if they want to play that game. How about the time when BBC TV played continuously over and over again the video of a Royal Army Tank driver getting incinerated by a Molotav Cocktail as he climbed out of his tank in Basra long before any family members knew about it. I am certain the US media would not have run that one. But my point is the perception over here is that the US public is eating this shit up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I'm not talking about an official BBC response. I'm talking about the responses from their listeners.

Oh, I realize that. I was thinking more along the lines of if the public had a freakin' clue, it'd be difficult for the bizarre behavior of the union to have been taken.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Geez, Grandpa didn't hold back on his grandson. You know it's bad when your grandfather calls you a SOB after you're dead.

Given that the Grandfather is the father of Cho Seung-Hui's mother, that was a rather unfortunate turn of phrase...

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I got into an argument with one of my friends last night who thought handguns should be banned and that it would've prevented the tragedy.

I pointed out that with someone as resourceful and determined as Cho, such an obstacle would've meant very little. He would have found a way to acquire those guns through illegal channels.

Guns are illegal here, but we still have shootings and deaths, and a couple of large scale rampages (Dunblane, Hungerford). S o yes, some people will still get hold of weapons if they want to try hard enough.

I believe that the ease of access to guns increases the chances of gun crime occurring, and guns being illegal in the UK is the reason why our gun crime figures are much lower. If someone wants to try and find or has a gun here they immediately stand out beacuse it is illegal. (But I assume that in the US you're not allowed to just wander down the street spinning a Glock around in your hand either?)

However, while I know number are way less, you would expect this because of population differences, and I don't know per capita rates, and even if this figure is way lower, I also realise that if a US government tried to ban all firearms, they wouldn't get re-elected, which is the same as saying it will never happen.

And as Leonidas is railing against us Brits, I'll counter with a question that popped into my head yesterday: (and it is question, not a statement) - is there any conflict in the facts that gun ownership is seen as a right of an American citizen to be vigorously protected, yet the US is the major force in trying to stop other countries having certain types of weapon...

Edit: I should add that the events that unfolded were truly horrific, and my deepest sympathies go out to all affected.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

SportsDino -- sounds nice ... but there really seems to be jack shit to back up your theory.

I've seen/heard little that indicates any desire that he be remembered or glorified, other than perhaps by those he was trying to (for lack of a better phrase) "get even" with. There's just nothing in this that seems to be ego-driven, more like lack-of-ego driven if anything. I'm not seeing anything that backs up your pseudo-intellectual claims and barring evidence to the contrary I've got to call bullshit on that line of reasoning.

Seems to me that there's a whole lot of people who aren't willing to deal with the stark reality of the existence of this sort of creature and would rather avoid acknowledging it instead of trying to deal with both it's existence & the reasons behind them. I strongly believe we do that at our own peril.

Very good people die for no apparent reason every single day. That doesn't minimize the scale of this terrible event nor the individual impact, but the reality is that if this had been an isolated domestic incident at the residence hall, hardly anyone would have heard or thought about it for more than fifteen minutes. Only because of the scale is this anything other than a passing blip in the news.

Didn't he say at one point that he was going to die like Jesus Christ, which I read as being a martyr for all kids in whatever position he felt he had been placed in. That, and the fact that he made 28 videos and sent them to NBC, suggests he wanted to be publicised.

Edit: to add I agree they are duty bound to report and show an essence of the material - that is what the people of a democrarcy demand, the idea and illusion that we are exposed to full information.

The other thing I found scary about the whole background is that as Cho ticked the 'No I have not had mental treatment' box because technically he was not committed, but technically went voluntarily, he was not violating any gun purchasing law, and there was no background check. There may as well be the question 'are you planning murder', and if the applicant ticks 'no' they're deemed responsible gun owners. This is separate to whether guns should be legal, but surely the purchase controls have to be tighter than this?

[Critch]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Oh I could utterly kill the British media if they want to play that game. How about the time when BBC TV played continuously over and over again the video of a Royal Army Tank driver getting incinerated by a Molotav Cocktail as he climbed out of his tank in Basra long before any family members knew about it.

They might point out that the tank driver wasn't incinerated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4269672.stm

[path12]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

And as Leonidas is railing against us Brits, I'll counter with a question that popped into my head yesterday: (and it is question, not a statement) - is there any conflict in the facts that gun ownership is seen as a right of an American citizen to be vigorously protected, yet the US is the major force in trying to stop other countries having certain types of weapon...

The contradictions in my country right now are myriad and terrible.

[Mac Howard]

I don't think you'll ever get Americans and Brits to agree on gun laws When you live in a country where guns are extremely rare and even the vast majority of criminals refuse to have anything to do with them, then it seems ridiculous that normal law-abiding citizens should wish to carry them around. That anyone should suggest that a student on a university campus should carry one for his own safety, seems insane.

But where Brits go wrong is when they insist that introducing gun laws into the USA would have a significant affect - that it would some how or another make the USA as safe from guns as the UK. It simply cannot happen.

Gun laws in the US always reminds of the Irish joke when a village peasant responds to a tourist's request for directions on getting back to Dublin with "Well, I wouldn't start from here". In introducing new gun laws you would not want to start in a country that has over 200 million guns already out in the community and a significant number of citizens who believe it's their god-given right to own one. It will be a very, very long time before even the most draconian ban will have any sort of affect whatsoever.

And when any punk that wants to rob you or break into your home could be carrying a gun and prepared to use it then it's not surprising, or "insane", for someone to want to have a gun to protect himself and his family - because only a gun can do that.

Where I differ from the pro-gun lobby is that I don't believe that the law-abiding citizen needs a gun that can fire off 100 rounds in 10 seconds (or whatever these damn things do) to protect himself. Surely it's not unreasonable to demand that those who wish to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons should have a very good reason for doing so. I don't see that guns of this sort should be freely available for self protection. And it is after all these weapons that turn a nutter like Cho into a multiple killer.

[Coder]

My personal view of guns mimic Jari's all the way, but I also understand that European gunlaws will never be applicable to the US for the very reason Mac Howard just explained. There are simply too many guns available already.

But I'll never buy the argument "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"... without the gun, odds are the "killing" would be "wounding" instead. Also, there is some debate the only people affected by the strict gunlaws are people who are "honest" and "lawabiding" and have no ill intentions. But we can also agree that most gun-related crimes happen with stolen weapons, and if the honest law abiding people couldn't purchase these weapons as easily without strong rules on how to store them (i.e. in two pieces in separate locations), stealing them to use them in criminal activities wouldn't be as easy either.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think it's fair to call it a "real debate" - it's nothing new, there's an element who has always shared that opinion. There's also an element who feels protesting at a gay victim's funeral is a good idea. We have 'em all in the USA, isn't not fair to label us based on any one view.

Yeah you're right. I wasn't really labelling everyone, just the loud NRA crowd that seems to outshout everyone else with their insane ideas. I know a majority...a vast majority do not even want to own a gun let alone carr yone around with them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Where I differ from the pro-gun lobby is that I don't believe that the law-abiding citizen needs a gun that can fire off 100 rounds in 10 seconds (or whatever these damn things do) to protect himself. Surely it's not unreasonable to demand that those who wish to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons should have a very good reason for doing so. I don't see that guns of this sort should be freely available for self protection. And it is after all these weapons that turn a nutter like Cho into a multiple killer.

Cho had a semi-automatic handgun that doesn't go anywhere near 100 rounds in 10 seconds. He may have had a 15-round magazine in it maybe (haven't heard the details). He had to reload MANY times, and that takes time (and is where some of the "why didn't they rush him?" questions came from). The reality is that a 6 or 8-round revolver and some speedloaders wouldn't have changed the equation much, or he just would have carried 3 or 4 of them (and you can empty the chamber just as fast as with a semi-auto handgun). And what if he'd been carrying a pump-action shotgun?

The last time a true "assault rifle" was used in a well-publicized crime was the Hollywood shootout way back when. They are almost never used for the kind of mass-killing everyone likes to attribute to them. And the Colombine killings were done with illegaly purchased guns (and at a time when the Clinton assault-weapons ban was in place).

And as a side note, there are already pretty major restrictions in place for fully-automatic weapons, which are the ones that can do your "100 rounds in 10 seconds". Also silencers and some of Hollywood's other favored implements.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And as a side note, there are already pretty major restrictions in place for fully-automatic weapons, which are the ones that can do your "100 rounds in 10 seconds". Also silencers and some of Hollywood's other favored implements.

My "100 rounds in 10 seconds" shouldn't be taken too literally, gstelmack, but merely illustrating my objection to a gun that can be used to fire off round after round after round in quick succession. You really don't need to be capable of killing 30 people in order to defend yourself against a home invader or a mugger. The argument that you have a right to protect yourself should not extend to a capability for aggressive action against a multi-person target. Whether a gun is capable of that should be the basis for any ban in my view.

But the idea that you can take guns out of society by banning their sale has been shown to be a fallacy here in Australia. Following the massacre of 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996 the government brought in such a ban but it had little effect despite a government amnesty and a buy-back scheme of guns at purchase price. Only old, often non-working guns were brought in and there is anecdotal evidence that this money was used to buy newer, more effective, legal guns. There has been no significant reduction in the guns in society by this ban.

But it has been argued, I don't know if correctly, that the ban on ammunition for these guns has been effective. A ban on the sale of guns doesn't reduce the numbers of guns but a ban on the sale of ammunition means that the supply of ammunition, and consequently the effectiveness of the guns, gradually runs down. Gun control supporters have argued that this is the crucial point of control.

As gun incidents are relatively rare here the lack of any further incidents doesn't prove much in either direction yet.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

My "100 rounds in 10 seconds" shouldn't be taken too literally, gstelmack, but merely illustrating my objection to a gun that can be used to fire off round after round after round in quick succession. You really don't need to be capable of killing 30 people in order to defend yourself against a home invader or a mugger. The argument that you have a right to protect yourself should not extend to a capability for aggressive action against a multi-person target. Whether a gun is capable of that should be the basis for any ban in my view.

I understand, but my point is that many people who are for banning guns don't understand what they are trying to ban. The "assault weapon" ban from Clinton was a great example, as it had precisely zero impact on violent crime in this country. Most of those weapons weren't used in these types of crimes anyway.

And the only way those guns had the capability of killing 30 people was because he had time to reload multiple times. What's wrong with me owning a 9mm w/ 15-round magazine to defend my home from 3 or 4 guys breaking in? My concern is if you limit everyone to a 6-shooter, they aren't defending themselves at all, or they are just carrying multiple 6-shooters to make up for it.

And if you doubt my point about taking multiple revolvers, check out the arsenal of mostly-hunting weapons the Texas sniper took with him in the prior largest mass shooting in American history.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But the idea that you can take guns out of society by banning their sale has been shown to be a fallacy here in Australia. Following the massacre of 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996 the government brought in such a ban but it had little effect despite a government amnesty and a buy-back scheme of guns at purchase price. Only old, often non-working guns were brought in and there is anecdotal evidence that this money was used to buy newer, more effective, legal guns. There has been no significant reduction in the guns in society by this ban.

But it has been argued, I don't know if correctly, that the ban on ammunition for these guns has been effective. A ban on the sale of guns doesn't reduce the numbers of guns but a ban on the sale of ammunition means that the supply of ammunition, and consequently the effectiveness of the guns, gradually runs down. Gun control supporters have argued that this is the crucial point of control.

As gun incidents are relatively rare here the lack of any further incidents doesn't prove much in either direction yet.

The problem is that strict gun laws (or even ammunition laws) don't stop violent crime. Strict weapon laws didn't slow down the IRA much. Strict weapon laws didn't stop 3 guys from carrying backpacks full of explosives onto London mass transit. Strict weapon laws didn't stop a religious nut from putting Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system. The Unabomber didn't use guns at all. Neither did the Olympic Park bomber in either that incident or his attacks on abortion clinics. Weapon laws don't stop kids from making pipebombs (and the wonder is that Harris and Kliebold didn't make heavy use of them). The Branch Davidians had a ton of illegal weaponry.

My concern with gun control is that it does nothing to address the real problem (violent members of society who will find a way to get even) while taking away an important capability for the populace to defend itself. People have other options besides guns and have used them in the past (homemade explosives, cars, serial killer techniques), and have shown a propensity for finding the guns and ammunition even when they are illegal.

[Dr. Sak]

I was at the Penn State Blue/White game this week and they did a tribute to the victims that died in the VT shootings. One was a PSU grad from Bellefonte. The university sold tee shirts with Penn State in Maroon and Orange and all proceeds went to his family. The students also organized some fundraiser events and turned the "S Zone" into a VT zone.



Brent Carter, a freshman running back, went to high school with 2 of the victims and the shooter. Before the game there was a moment of silence along with a prayer read by one of the player's over the PA system and finally Amazing Grace played by the Blue Band. It was a pretty touching moment. My good friend, a VT Grad, came up with me and was amazed at seeing the 71,000 people in attendance dressed in Orange and Maroon. Below are some pictures from the day.

[Toddzilla]

For the Ohio State spring game, the players wore VT decals on their helmets - very neat.

[digamma]

Virginia Tech's golfers had a terrific final round yesterday to move up from fourth place and share the ACC Championship with Georgia Tech as co-champions. Definitely some inspired (and inspiring) play.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

My girlfriend's family are Koreans living in Virginia. I bet they, the school kid age relatives in particular, will get some backlash because of this.

This has turned out to be the case. Her cousin goes to James Madison and so far she has been verbally harassed numerous times (quite nasty insults, too), as have some of her Asian friends who aren't even Korean. It's happening to younger kids too, and the Korean community is pretty scared right now, and many are looking to move to other states, while some are even heading back to Korea.

People are dumb.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The problem is that strict gun laws (or even ammunition laws) don't stop violent crime.

It depends on how successful the controls are at removing guns from society. In Britain, where guns have never been a way of life, the controls have reduced the numbers to 1 gun for every 150 citizens - mainly with police and the top end of the crime community (the criminals ordinary UK citizens encounter are not armed with guns). The results are impressive as these figures for 2003 reveal:

Gun deaths per 100,000 population:

A) USA: 10.58

B) UK: 0.35

That's why Brits don't find the US position appealing.

But Brits are wrong in thinking that the US situation of 3 guns for every 4 citizens could be changed from A to B in the US by gun control. It simply isn't going to happen and, as is often argued, any reduction in gun numbers will be overwhelmingly with the law-abiding citizens (you'll note from the above numbers that the British gun kills 4 times as many people as the American gun - the US has 120 times as many guns per head of population but only 30 times the death rate - because British guns are only in the hands of those whose lifestyle is involved with killing, not law-abiding citizens ie as you remove the number of guns the gun demographic moves towards a domination by law officers and criminals).

and the Strict weapon laws didn't slow down the IRA much.

Yes it did. Had Northern Ireland been like the US with guns it would have been full scale civil war. In fact the gun deaths per 100,000 for NI over the 20 years of The Troubles was still only around 3 - roughly a third of the US. Belfast could very easily have been like Baghdad without that strict control over guns.

Strict weapon laws didn't stop 3 guys from carrying backpacks full of explosives onto London mass transit. Strict weapon laws didn't stop a religious nut from putting Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway system. The Unabomber didn't use guns at all. Neither did the Olympic Park bomber in either that incident or his attacks on abortion clinics. Weapon laws don't stop kids from making pipebombs (and the wonder is that Harris and Kliebold didn't make heavy use of them). The Branch Davidians had a ton of illegal weaponry.

Nor will they turn the 49ers into Superbowl material

Gun control is about reducing deaths from accidents, drunken/drug-induced fights, domestic violence and impulse suicides not just stopping the occasional Cho. All these come from the easy access to guns - around 25-30,000 deaths a year not the 32 of these appalling but relatively rare atrocities.

But to influence these then that easy access has to be removed - and that isn't going to happen for a long, long time with 200 million plus guns in the community already.

My concern with gun control is that it does nothing to address the real problem (violent members of society who will find a way to get even)

Guns turn violent members of society into killers - the gun is designed to amplify man's ability to kill and maim. It's a very effective tool.

while taking away an important capability for the populace to defend itself.

The danger of precipitous gun control is precisely that: it will affect the law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself before it affects the criminal.

But that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done to address the situation. I think it needs to be gradual, progressive and monitored for its effectiveness and any unintended consequences. To leave it alone I think would be as irresponsible as a full and immediate control on all guns. Control has to be such that it reduces the deaths by reducing the overall numbers more than it increases them because of the gun demographic changes.

[King of New York]

Mac Howard, you bring an admirable clear-headedness to this discussion.

If there is going to be gun control in the US, it will probably develop along the lines of anti-smoking campaigns. Over the course of a generation or so, a creeping combination of financial pressure (taxes making the product increasingly/prohibitively expensive), restrictions (types of guns, number of guns, and so on), and cultural pressure (designed to make gun owners, like smokers, feel guilty) will gradually reduce the number of guns in circulation.

The NRA understands this, and that's why it fights tooth-and-nail against any attempt to regulate or limit gun ownership. If it loses one battle, it will probably start to lose many battles.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Mac Howard, you bring an admirable clear-headedness to this discussion.

If there is going to be gun control in the US, it will probably develop along the lines of anti-smoking campaigns. Over the course of a generation or so, a creeping combination of financial pressure (taxes making the product increasingly/prohibitively expensive), restrictions (types of guns, number of guns, and so on), and cultural pressure (designed to make gun owners, like smokers, feel guilty) will gradually reduce the number of guns in circulation.

The NRA understands this, and that's why it fights tooth-and-nail against any attempt to regulate or limit gun ownership. If it loses one battle, it will probably start to lose many battles.

I haven't heard this line of reasoning before, but it sounds very plausible to me. Civil rights is another parallel--law will not change internal attitudes in the short term, but it can impact external behavior that may impact internal attitudes in the long term. Obviously, cultural attitudes change very slowly--for example, racism is still an issue in the US today 40 years after the heyday of the civil rights movement. But with that being said, racial attitudes are much more moderate now than they were even 20 years ago--I wouldn't doubt that legislative and judicial action in the post-WWII period played a significant role in beginning the cultural shifts in attitude that are still ongoing.