One Morning in April
The April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech massacre revisited
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in History — Comments (80) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We should all remember April 16, 2007 as though it was yesterday.
The morning began like almost any other on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, home of the Hokies. Students got up, went to breakfast, went to class, or went out for the day, blissfully unaware of the fact that, within mere hours of the start of their day, the worst tragedy ever to strike an American institute of higher education would take place on those very grounds, with the slaughter of 33 individuals by a single murderous student.
Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old resident alien from South Korea who had lived in the United States for nearly fifteen years, apparently awoke that fateful Monday morning with one singular purpose in mind: to ensure that this day, decided by himself to be his last on Earth, would also be the last day of life for as many others as he could possibly make it.
Read on.
His killing spree began in a dormitory, where, at 7:15 am, he gunned down an 18-year-old girl and a 22-year-old young man. Once the incident had been reported, the dorm was locked down -- and then the lockdown was inexplicably lifted, with no progress having been made at finding the two students' murder (the university police believed, without any evidence whatsoever, that he had “left campus”). Further, other than a cursory, uninformative email sent well after the fact,no effort was made to notify students of that double homicide.
Due in part to these mistakes, the two killed in the dormitory would just be the first of dozens slaughtered that morning.
Two hours later, Cho crossed the campus, entered an engineering building, chained the doors of the building shut from the inside, and proceeded to empty clip after clip of 9mm and .22-caliber ammunition into the students who filled the crowded classrooms, firing through doors, lining students up against the wall and executing them one by one, and aiming for anybody he could find in the hallways or in the rooms.
Students were reduced to barricading doors with desks, playing dead, and even jumping out of third-and-fourth-story windows to escape the scene of massive carnage with their lives intact. What those who managed to escape left behind was a bloodbath. When all was said and done, over sixty people were injured and, when all was said and done, over thirty were dead, including the killer himself.
Neither the campus police nor the administration deserve full blame for the massacre. While both are tasked with protecting the welfare and ensuring the safety of Virginia Tech’s student body, none could have imagined a murderous rampage of this magnitude in their wildest dreams – let alone adequately prepared for, and reacted properly to, such an event.
The very idea of such senseless killing is impossible to comprehend for the vast majority of people (in part, this is why so many in the West refuse to -- or simply cannot -- comprehend the irrationally, unquenchably murderous nature of our Islamist enemy in the War on Terror).
What could have driven a young man to such lengths that he turned to the vicious slaughter of his fellow humans as an outlet? We will likely never know; however, the content of the note Cho left behind, and information from classmates and teachers, combine to paint the picture of an exceptionally troubled young man who was alone, unhappy, and likely unstable -– in short, a young man who displayed virtually all of the warning signs one would look for if trying to identify a potential perpetrator of such a vicious act.
The fact that little or no action was taken to intervene in Cho's life before he committed this massacre will (and should) cause endless second-guessing for years to come, both of the university’s faculty and of the student support system in place at Virginia Tech. However, the most important action that can now be taken is to continue seeking to prevent such a tragedy taking place in the future.
The grief felt by the families of these students, professors, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and friends was impossible to measure, or to put into words. As Nikki Giovanni, a University Distinguished Professor at Virginia Tech, said, “We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on. We are embracing our mourning.” (Her later comparison of the students slaughtered that day to baby elephants killed by hunters was exceedingly pathetic and insulting, but her aforementioned phrase was well-put at the time).
Those involved experienced so many different thoughts, feelings, and reactions -- and those experiences did not stop for them, like they did for so many of us, when a brief time had passed and the massacre had left the 24-hour news cycle. How can people respond to such an unthinkable atrocity, to the act of such reckless hate? How can they cope with the senseless snuffing out of the life of a family member or a loved one, who had, until that fateful moment, simply been going about their normal life?
Many of us “on the outside” experienced our own forms of sorrow, rage, and disgust in response to this tragic event. Debates over gun control were re-ignited, with special attention being paid to a bill vo2ted down in the Virginia state House of Representatives which would have allowed students and employees to carry registered handguns on campus. A Virginia Tech spokesman praised the negative outcome at the time, saying that the bill’s defeat would “help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
On the contrary; I do not wish to enter into a debate on gun control and the second amendment here, at this time and in this place, but had the bill passed, and even one student in that building been carrying a weapon on their person, how many lives could have been saved -- and, if the answer was "one," would that have been too few?
Pundits, politicians, and commentators offered their own observations on the situation at the time. On ESPN Radio’s Dan Patrick Show, baseball commentator and hall of fame player Joe Morgan lamented that, since this did not take place during football or basketball season, the students will regrettably be “forced to heal on alone” - and then had the audacity to compare this massacre of over thirty innocent men and women to the Don Imus scandal of the week before. This latter sentiment was echoed by Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama, who directly compared Monday’s “physical violence” at Virginia Tech to the “verbal violence” of the since-fired radio “shock jock.” Of course, Mr. Obama had no problem making excuses for the remarks of his pastor, who called on God to "Damn America" and spent twenty years cursing the White Man and the US in his church to a willingly listening Obama; however, a far less calculated and intentioned comment like Imus's was, somehow, the same as this slaughter to the perpetually muddle-minded Obama.
The aforementioned Nikki Giovanni's address at the vigil included the following statement:
We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did not deserve it but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, but neither do the invisible children walking the night to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy.
These statements are amazingly insulting to the victims of this act, and no greater purpose is served by the unspeakably pathetic comparison of the slaughtered people to baby elephants, or the equation of the senseless loss of life to the offending of sensibilities. Only in a society as soft and as comfortable as ours has become could such comparisons be straightfacedly drawn. The fact that such statements could be made are almost assuredly a sign of one of two things: (1) We have solved every one of our real problems, and are relegated to comparing hurt feelings and politically convenient statements to actual murder; or (2) We have buried our real problems so deeply for the purpose of focusing on petty little issues like hurt feelings and political correctness that Cho's act was simply a single vent of warning about the geyser (if not volcano) on which so many petty, pathetically weak personalities in our society are currently sitting.
Not all of the disparate developments and responses provoked by this tragedy were negative, though. For all too brief a time, the Virginia Tech family was brought together, albeit thirty-three people short, in a way that only tragedy could have accomplish. Ordinary people, going about their ordinary lives, with ordinary quibbles, complaints, and trials, had their lives forcibly put into perspective, and those in this nation who did not fall prey to the inexplicable and inexcusable urge to view slaughtered people in the same light as hunted animals or hurt feelings were made aware, once again, how precious life is, and how quickly -– and pointlessly -– it could be stuffed out.
From the ashes of such a horrific series of events arose tales of unimaginable heroism, such as that displayed by Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor and émigré from Romania who used his body to bar Cho from entering the door to his classroom, while being shot, so as to give his students an opportunity to save their own lives by exiting through the windows. As Powerline.com’s Paul Mirengoff so aptly put it at the time, “More than sixty years after [the Holocaust survivor’s] liberation, the rescued became the rescuer.”
Paul continued:
In a 1974 speech in which he introduced returning POW John McCain to the CPAC convention, Ronald Reagan asked where we find such men. He answered, “We [find] them in our streets, in the offices, the shops and the working places of our country and on the farms.” Professor Librescu's heroism reminds us that we also find them among those who come to this country from other lands.
It is difficult to put into words a personal response, or a personal reaction, to such heroism – or to the unspeakable act of barbarism which forced such people as Dr. Librescu to become the heroes that they became. As for the rest of the students and faculty in the vicinity, who acted to save their own lives rather than sacrificing themselves to save others, no ill can be spoken. An individual cannot be faulted for fleeing from danger, or for being less than prepared to act heroically in the face of mortal peril. Not everybody is created in the mold of a Todd Beamer and his companions on United Airlines flight 93; nor are they made of the same stuff as a Prof. Librescu, who had faced death so many times in the past, before rushing to finally meet it so as to stave off its arrival for the young people under his charge. This is not to imply that any of these men and women are lesser people for their acts of self-preservation; however, one can only wonder how many lives could have been saved had there been an active resistance on the part of students who were being lined up against the wall and executed, or who were jumping out of the windows to avoid the fate of their peers.
One fact remains above all others: a person never knows how they will react to a given situation until they have been placed in it, and those who have not been in such a horrifying, gruesome situation as those students at Virginia Tech faced Monday morning should be very slow indeed to judge the actions of those who were there. We all hope that we would react like Professor Librescu did; however, as a commenter at RedState.com put it, “Great people do great things. I like to say that in a moment of terror like that I would do the same thing, but in my heart, I don't know if I would have the courage.” Human nature being what it is, I have a hard time believing that many of those people who made it through the ordeal, while their classmates were perishing around them, will not spend at least part of every day for the rest of their lives reliving, rethinking, and second-guessing the events of that morning, and their corresponding actions, and wondering if there was anything they could have done differently – or could have done at all – which, though it would have placed them at even greater risk, might have saved the life of even one of their fellows.
I know that I would. Every day.
So let us keep in our thoughts, prayers, and memories those who were lost, and those whom they left behind, commit to remembering this tragedy and the lessons it teaches us.
Rather than stepping onto a soapbox and beating a political drum, a far more productive response to this event would be to continue following the lead of a Virginia Tech student, present at the scene of the killings, who wrote an email to his family in which he recounted the story told him, amidst the events of the morning, of her own ordeal, when she looked out into the hallway of the building where the murders were taking place, and came face to face with Cho.
"The girl told me that when she saw the shooter, she saw his face. She saw that he was sad, and she told me that she actually felt sorry for him. This didn't hit me right away, because at that time, everything was very chaotic. But after returning home later in the day and realizing the magnitude of this incident, I began to think about the girl's story and how personal this really was. I realized that this girl literally stared down the barrel of a 9mm handgun, but she looked beyond it and saw the man holding it. She had mercy on this man as he was threatening her life with his very presence. For the rest of the day, the death toll climbed, and I kept thinking about the victims, their families, and how this would affect the world's view of the school that I call my home. But still more, I thought about the gunman."
Then this student, in an act which we can only look upon in wonder, requested of his family that they “say a prayer for [the killer] by name.” He continued:
“Say a prayer for his family by name. Do not curse him, though you may curse this event. As Christians – as people – we are called to be merciful. I want to be as merciful as the girl I sat with…today. I know I will be filled with this inevitable feeling of anger, and maybe hatred toward this man when they announce his name, but I will put that aside, and I will ask God to bless the family that survives him. God loves this man as much as He loves the people he killed. So let us not pray for the 32 victims and the single gunman, instead let us pray for the 33 human souls that met God today.”
That this student, who saw the carnage himself, who lost friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, and who had his life changed forever by events out of his control, can approach the aftermath of this event with such maturity, serenity, perspective, and forgiveness should send a strong, clear signal to us all.
Using this anniversary to push pet, petty, and pathetic political causes is absolutely and inarguably the wrong thing to do. At Miami University of Ohio, "a professor and students in his men's health class" are asking male students to paint their fingernails red today as a means of "rais[ing] awareness about senseless violence committed by men."
Excuse me?
This goes back to the two-option diagnosis I presented above. Are we really (1) so devoid of real problems, or (2) so repressed, as a society that we can take an anniversary such as this, of an event which should have served as a wake-up call to a nation about a threat and the existence (and pervasiveness) of a mindset such as Cho's, and use it to try to make a pathetically invalid point about blood on all men's hands, while simultaneously using that symbol (in the form of fingernail polish) to encourage the feminization of the masculine half of our society?
Those of us with a modicum of perspective, who are even minimally in touch with reality, can do better than this. We can use this aniversary, and remember this event, in such a way as to learn from it, and to rededicate ourselves to the safety and righteousness of our people and of our society.
So, let us never forget the events of this tragic morning in April, 2007 – and let us come together as a stronger community, and strive to be better, stronger individuals as a result.
« "We're All Gonna Die!!!!!!!!!!!" — Comments (44) | Up From Mediocrity — Comments (6) »
One Morning in April 80 Comments (0 topical, 80 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
from the above essay. Perhaps you could shed a little light on that?
political drum"... we should emulate a person dealing with the aftermath.
This incident cries out for politics to change laws that can lessen the numbers of aftermaths.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
You question the police response to the first two murders. On what grounds? The police responded to a double homicide - a man and a woman. The police searched the immediate area for the shooter. He was not found.
Police experience is that shooters, in most cases, seek to get as far away as possible from the crime scene. Can you recall any other shooter returning and killing more people?
The police, not being either mind-readers or seers, acted logically. There was no perceived need to alert everyboby on the campus or the residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the campus other than through the usual media channels.
The police acted properly based upon the available information.
Now, as a hindsight reaction, shooting incidents result in full "lockdowns" or as I prefer to say insuring the "fish/victims" remain in the "barrel/locked classroom" as to not inconvience the shooter.
The police acted exactly as they should have. Campuses nationwide are now acting like ninnies. My own employer instituted a campus-wide alert system combining email, pager, and autodial telephone contact information, apparently so that they could create a panic next time there's a double homicide in a dorm.
Still, I don't think that alert system is a bad thing, since it relies on preexisting infrastructure, but the potential for knee-jerk use and trapping people at a crime scene is real.
Rather than demanding that government protect us, we should examine why we are unable to protect ourselves, and why we need protecting at all. We are in this spot because we have become accustomed to relying on the police to respond to things which threaten us. Call 911, we're told.
Instead of lining up against the wall, those students should have thrown every chair, cell phone, pen, pencil, and most especially, $100 text book they could find at the bitter boy with the gun.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Prof. Librescu is among my personal heroes.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
I don't disagree with either of you in the least.
longwalker, I think that one thing we can take from this is that people around such an incident need to be informed to the greatest extent possible. Even the tiniest of alerts may have caused people to have been more on their guard and vigilant leading up to the massive Norris Hall slaughter.
Socrates, you're right -- regardless what prior information was or was not provided the students, the fact that their reaction to Cho's lining them up against the wall and executing them was, at least for many, to acquiesce and to accept slaughter is a resounding indictment against their personal wills to live and against their instincts to fight back. What this says about society as a whole isn't entirely clear, but it sure isn't good.
Congratulations, Jeff. It must not have bean an easy feat to concoct a narrative of this horrible tragedy that managed to mention:
(1) The killer's status as a resident alien (imagine how many VT massacres we'll have if we keep letting those people live here!)
(2) The culpability of those who would place any restrictions on our ability to carry firearms
(3) Obama's pastor
(4) McCain's heroism and implicit Reagan endorsement...from 34 years ago.
I'm a little disappointed you didn't manage to include anything about John Kerry's war record or Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf, but I understand that you wanted to avoid infusing petty political point scoring into the commemoration of the deaths of 33 people. It's gracious of you that "rather than stepping onto a soapbox and beating a political drum", you chose to use this occasion to encourage us to "come together as a stronger community". I wish there were more wise voices out there like yours who understand that "using this anniversary to push pet, petty, and pathetic political causes is absolutely and inarguably the wrong thing to do."
is your friend.
That is all.
___________________________________________
Just a typical, small town, white girl...
might want to think about the contrast between the immigrant who committed the mass murder and the immigrant whose heroism stopped the murderer from taking even more lives.
Where do these heroes come from?
Answer: what Reagan said, in talking about another hero.
"(2) The culpability of those who would place any restrictions on our ability to carry firearms"
VT was a gun free zone. You wanted more ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
problems buy his guns so easily?
I'm not for gun control per se, but it is kind of scary that any deranged nut bag can get his hands on guns with clips full of bullets pretty easily.
It is 20 times harder to change your visa status from visiting to student than it is to buy handguns with enough firepower to kill 50 people in 20 minutes.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
How were so many competent people convinced they should leave their ability to defend themselves at home?
The problem with your visa problem and my gun problem is bureaucracy (usually dominated by liberals).
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Killing 50 people in 20 minutes doesn't require a lot of fire power. That's 24 seconds per victim. You could do that with a knife if no one will or can oppose you. The key is having all the force in the room.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
cutting in line at movies, etc... if everyone were carrying guns around. I used to teach school, and I know I wouldn't want to have a gun (I would be in prison today).
Killing 50 people in 20 minutes with a knife actually isn't as easy as you would think.
I'm all for gun ownership, but we don't exactly allow people to put metal spikes all over their cars to absorb the impact of running into other cars. Maybe all cars should have large metal spikes...
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
< / snark >
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
So do Marines driving on base. Marines are notorious agressive drivers, and we take it out on each other by shooting each other at stop lights. [/sarcasm]
BTW, you might be surprised how easy it is to kill a person with a knife. Hell, you'd probably be surprised how easy it is to kill someone with a sock full of rocks.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Socks full of rocks will be next.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The human body is a weapon.
Gravity is a weapon.
A toothbrush bearing the image of a cartoon character, hone on concrete, can turn into a deadly awl.
The human mind is infinitely inventive in producing tools and means to defend itself. It will not be stopped, deterred, or even set back in that endeavor by some silly law.
We can take comfort in that fact, that humans adapt to whatever restriction on our self-defense that other humans attempt to enforce, but it's little comfort when we know that the restrictions are never adopted uniformly. There is always someone who figures out how to make a gun when all theres have are pointed sticks.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Marines are an elite... they aren't your average motorists.
Israelis have good reason to carry weapons. Our crime/murder rates aren't that high.
And as for your box of rocks/knife argument, if you had a desk in your hand, would you rather brain a guy with a sock full of rocks or a 9 mm?
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
There are 300 million citizens, each of whom is a member of the militia.
Now, of course, we know better.
There are people who are Adults.
And there are people who are The Children.
You, for the record, are one of The Children.
I am one of the Adults.
I'll do my best to explain to you which of your so-called "rights" you have to give up. For The Children.
Gun ownership is a big one. Surely you don't think that it would be okay to shoot The Children?
Later today, I'll explain what the 1st Amendment *REALLY* means and how you shouldn't be allowed to write whatever you want on the internet. (For the record, that's also for The Children.)
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Anyone familiar with my posts knows I am not into social engineering and I am not one to invoke children. I haven't evoked children today.
So if you will set aside your attitude problem, I will explain to you that there has never been a 300 million person militia. Most militia armaments were kept in a central location (remember Lexington and Concord? The British were trying to raid the arsenal).
Only 33 percent of the population supported the Revolution in the first place, so there was no uniformity of militia membership. Plus, during colonial times people carried muskets used mainly for hunting.
9 mm semi-automatic pistols with clips are hardly hunting weapons. Even so, I am for handgun rights. I am just questioning a system that makes it so simple for someone so unstable to buy these kinds of weapons.
Even the founding fathers wouldn't have given a musket to the village idiot.
But I guess there are plenty of village idiots to argue in favor of their fellow village idiots.
I'll tell you where you can stick your "I'm the adult" crap.
Go screw yourself. I certainly don't think you should give up that right.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
after you pass these laws of yours?
Because I imagine someplace like Washington DC springing up.
Hey, maybe they just need tougher laws!
For The Children.
For the record, do you not think that these laws you think ought to be in place will affect you?
If you think they won't, then you're trading away *MY* right to own a gun for some imagined safety on your part after everyone follows these laws you imagine to the letter.
In truth, you'll end up with Washington DC.
As evidence for my point of view I point you to Washington DC.
Can you show me where the laws you're proposing have actually, you know... worked?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I have proposed.
You seem to think simply raising questions about handing mentally unstable people semi-automatic handguns threatens your right to defend yourself.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Dude. I agree that they shouldn't!
Bad people shouldn't be allowed to do darn near anything, as far as I'm concerned.
They shouldn't be allowed beer! They shouldn't be allowed whiskey!
But if I started arguing in a thread about the 18th and 21st Amendment that bad people should not be allowed beer or whiskey and when someone else asked me about laws and unintended consequences and whatnot... would you consider it honest on my part to say "Hey! Tell me where I proposed a law!"
If all we're just saying is that bad people shouldn't own guns, well... of course I agree with that. Do you agree that they shouldn't be allowed to buy whiskey?
If so, then we agree!
And we haven't proposed a law! Hurray!
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If a bad person has whiskey, that does not make a bit of difference.
I am not arguing deserts. I am not saying that mentally unstable people don't "deserve" guns. I am saying mentally unstable people are particularly dangerous with guns.
We don't allow small children to drive cars. Why? Are they going to take my car next? They certainly aren't bad children.
We don't allow particularly aged and incapacitated people to drive cars. Why? Are they going to take my drivers license next? Old people aren't bad people.
It isn't about deserts. It is about deciding as a community that certain behaviors are too risky. Giving guns to the mentally unstable isn't a matter of whether they deserve it or not, it is simply a matter of protecting your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Let's repeal the 2nd. Surely any reasonable person would agree that the right to keep and bear arms ought to be infringed in some, exceptionally limited, circumstances.
Crazy people, for example.
The Fathers wrote unambiguouly in error and surely we can now see that a little more understanding of the importance of being able to decide things as a community on their part would have resulted in far fewer deaths.
We should totally set up a database like the no-fly list.
We could call it the no-gun list.
What could possibly go wrong?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
You actually read the 2nd to protect the rights of the mentally ill and retarded to keep and maintain militias.
It gives new meaning to Special Forces.
Maybe you could be their colonel. Col. Birdmojo, general in chief of the Speical Forses. Keeper of liberty and the pursuit of pancakes...
: )
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Your own tag line.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The operative word it it is "can"
Not all practices decided by local communities are wrong. That kind of rule making is the very essence of conservatism.
It is what Burke was defending. Localities know best how to regulate the behavior of their citizens. When a mentally unstable student from outside the community wants to buy a pistol, it is in no way tyrannical for that community to say no.
I doubt that any of the founding fathers would give a gun to a known psychotic.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
I more fear the tendency of those in power to ask "what kind of person would *WANT* lethal force at their disposal anyway?" and come to the conclusion that only crazy people would want that.
I do not trust the government to administer mental health assessments.
I do not trust the government to administer literacy tests prior to voting.
Not because there isn't some idealized fantasy world in which only sane people would own guns and only people who have read Milton Friedman would vote... but because I've seen the government try to do things like "administer literacy tests" and seen what is done in reality.
I do not think that the reality of what you are proposing is anything *CLOSE* to what you'd actually get if we put the government in charge of it.
Whether it's making sure the right people get guns, the right people vote, or the right people get health care... what you are proposing sounds nice. Sure.
But what I am arguing against is not the nice thing that you want that would never happen. I'm arguing against what we'd end up getting after the politicians get their hands on the license do do what you are suggesting they have license to do.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The federal NICS check requires that you supply information concerning past mental illness, and consults a state-supplied, federally-maintained list of people deemed mentally defective for such purposes. If Cho provided misinformation about his mental problems and his name was never passed along to the NICS listing by whichever headshrinker or state agency should have reported it, that's not a problem with the law, per se. (Even if the problem was that his diagnosed mental conditions did not meet the criteria outlined by the GCA of 1968, I don't think that anybody ever put on an antidepressant is at risk of becoming a murderer.)
It may be a problem with the system put in place to enforce the law, but there's a limited amount that can be done to prevent determined crazies from doing terrible things. Particularly without restricting the rights of the law-abiding, responsible citizen types.
--
This too shall pass.
"Particularly without restricting the rights of the law-abiding, responsible citizen types."
That is who loses when the government deigns to "find" something in the constitution that is not there.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
the mentally ill to divulge their own mental illness to gun shops. Wow. Only the good mentally ill people are affected by that.
This doesn't have to be a federal law.
Local business has a responsiblity to the people it serves.
If you went to McDonalds and found a lice-infested crazy person with open sores making your hamburger, the manager could say, "hey, he works for cheap. If you don't like it don't eat here".
There is some expectation that gun shops be responsible. And to do this, they must have this kind of information at hand.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
More than I trust the government to fairly and accurately keep a mental health database.
It's like we're talking about whether, in theory, literacy tests could be administered before someone votes.
Do we agree that, in theory, only people who know how to read and write should vote? Sure!
And yet, when people think of literacy tests, they don't think of this theoretical, reasonable, thing.
They think of the actual thing done by actual governments that were actually odious.
Imagine that.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Local business and any business for that matter has but one responsibility to make a profit. PERIOD. There is NO responsibility to "the people it serves" or to society as a whole. They needn't lose sales just because it offends you or anyone else.
And if "a lice-infested crazy person with open sores" worked at McDonalds it would negatively affect profits.
Individual states are supposed to be reporting this information to the federal government. That they do not is not the fault of the man behind the counter. My point is, there is already a law. If it doesn't accomplish the desired result, maybe laws are not the solution. A determined individual will acquire a gun. Or a knife. Or a bomb. Or God-knows-what.
I'm not going to touch the comment about gun shops.
Also, if you can tell by looking at/talking to a person that he's on meds for clinical depression, you should be the subject of House, M. D. Since Cho bought one of his guns over the Internet, I assume you can suss out mental illness through email and Paypal?
Further, I don't really want the federal government to have the power to deny me the right to defend myself because a government employee thinks I might be socially maladjusted.
--
This too shall pass.
Social engineering didn't work in Dicken's time, and won't work any better now.
And more guns per person.
Now I am not certain but I think that's called a contradiction.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
that gun ownership increases crime.
The Israelis have to worry about frequent attacks from Palestine... that is why they carry guns and do not have a lot of problems.
We are a much more diverse society with plenty of crazies walking around. Have you been out and about?
I do not questions the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. I just don't think any Tom Dick or Harry who has been cited for stalking and sent to a psychologist because his professors thought he was dangerous should walk into a gunshop and buy semi-automatic pistols. It is madness.
Besides, a good slingshot can stop someone cold in their tracks. It worked for David.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
You claimed the level of violence in Israel mandated it
Well we have a higher level of violence.
I still stand by my original statement concerning this entire meme.
VT was and is a gun free zone.
Fat lot of good it did.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
for a gun free zone.
You have to separate the kind of violence we experience and the kind of violence Israel experiences. What planet are you living on? If Florida, Alabama and South Carolia were sending suicide bombers and mass murderers into Georgia on a weekly basis, I would have no problem with everyone carrying guns.
I actually have no problem with it now. I just want to control, as a community, the sale of guns to mentally unstable people. As it stands now, those records are confidential and gun shops can't check them.
Your slippery slope arguments are silly in this context.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Only in charge of determining mental health.
What could possibly go wrong?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Let's just hand pistols out to mental patients.
That makes so much more sense than evaluating people's mental health before giving them a gun.
Brilliant. I feel really good about this Web site now.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
Nothing could possibly go wrong with having potential gun owners undergo mental health evaluations!
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Should not be the sole requirement to vote.
The founding fathers were aware of this.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I find them repulsive in practice.
And the what was done, in practice, makes me say that the government should not be trusted with the power, in theory, to test for literacy before voting happens.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I just said I am not against the idea of setting the bar higher than having a pulse.
Also just because they were abused in the past, does not mean they always will be. I agree completely about the abuses in the past but are they in any way less offensive than the voter fraud, and paying people to vote that goes on now ? The effect is the same (One group winds up with votes counting more than they should)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You'll forgive me if I say that I will never, ever, ever see this statement as worth taking seriously.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Sorry if I implied it.
What I am saying is that the court system is now showing an excessive zeal in correcting such abuses. As long as that is in place it becomes a reasonable idea.
I agree with you about portions of the government abusing power, if there are appropriate checks and balances though the problem corrects.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You have just proposed making everyone's health records public documents.
I have pointed out two simple things.
1. Criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are CRIMINALS.
2. The presence of guns in Israel correlates to a lower crime rate. This makes your argument pointless and foolish.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
has access to your medical records when you join up.
You have to pass a physical to do many things.
To drive a car you have to take a vision test.
Why not be evaluated before buying a semi-automatic handgun?
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
No one has access to your medical records unless you specifically grant consent.
Aside from the relevant Hipaa laws there is the matter of doctor patient confidentiality.
It would help your case if you knew what you were talking about before you said things.
Second
"You have to pass a physical to do many things."
Like what ? and which of those are rights granted in the constitution ?
Third
"To drive a car you have to take a vision test."
See above. Right vs Privilege again.
Fourth
"Why not be evaluated before buying a semi-automatic handgun?"
Why not have a prostate exam as well why you are at it ?
For the ladies a Mammogram ?
Why do you argue for depriving citizens of their rights without the benefit of due process.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
and criminally deranged must grant consent to view their medical records. Nice.
You must pass a physical, mental and physical, to serve in the military, police department and fire department. And this is excusable because serving in the military etc... puts a gun in your hand and/or makes you responsible for the lives of the people around you.
A gun shop has no more right to sell a gun to the mentally ill than a person has a right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
"and criminally deranged must grant consent to view their medical records. Nice."
Criminally deranged ? That would mean convicted of a crime. Try again.
As for the ordinary mentally ill, I'd be very careful with that. You never know when someone might decide you belong in the category.
"You must pass a physical, mental and physical, to serve in the military, police department and fire department. And this is excusable because serving in the military etc... puts a gun in your hand and/or makes you responsible for the lives of the people around you.
None of these are rights. There is no right to serve in the military, the police force, or the fire department. Capiche ???
"A gun shop has no more right to sell a gun to the mentally ill than a person has a right to yell fire in a crowded theater."
No but a citizen has a right to buy one, unless he has lost his right through due process of the court system.
Plus just who do you propose administer this test ? The gun shop owner ? That will work well.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You concede that the "state" has a right to limit your constitutional rights as it sees fit to protect the community. Some people are committed to institutions against their will, depriving them of property rights, yet that is ok?
You must be laughing out of sheer frustration that I won't change my mind on this one. Local communities should be free to set up their own standards without worrying about a civil rights lawsuit. I can see the ACLU defending a retarded person's right to buy a shotgun at Wal-mart.
Many conservatives trust the state to strap people into electric chairs on circumstantial evidence, but will not budge an inch on selling guns to psychopaths.
ha ha ha.
I'd like to stay, but I've got to go home and water my pancakes. Then I'll teach the cockroaches to spy on my neighbor who's planning to put a chip in my head. It's either me or him... oh yea, I think I'll pick up a gun on the way home, too. It's not like I've committed any crimes or anything.
Bye.
"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper
and your complete lack of knowledge of the topics you address.
To wit
"I can see the ACLU defending a retarded person's right to buy a shotgun at Wal-mart."
I can't because the ACLU doesn't believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When is it coming out...?
These skinny threads are impossible to follow.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
You're not paying for your free ice cream, remember?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
W
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
a
t
g
u
y
t
a
l
k
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
?
n/t
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
Now that is a pleasant thought.... until my daughter starts dating.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
I think you'd have to get a bit lucky with, say, a steak knife, but a good cleaver might do you. I mean, you have to select the right tool for the job. (Hi! I'm a guy with a weird sense of humor!)
There are certainly people who should not be allowed to own or carry a gun. That's a large argument in favor of the NICS check required to purchase a firearm pretty much any place in the US. NICS checks include a check for mental problems, but if the purchaser lies and the state hasn't reported that information back to the Feds, it isn't going to show up.
The state's ability to compel good behavior from its citizens tends to run into sever difficulties with human nature. While human nature is not a solvable problem, there are better ways of compensating for it than asking everyone to play nice and putting them in time-out when they fail to comply. I mean, it works okay in kindergarten, but five-year-olds are a different kettle of fish than teenagers or adults.
--
This too shall pass.
The subject is not that simple. To assume that some unexperienced 19 year old is going to rise up like Rambo and save the day during every school shooting is naive. I don't question whether it would help, but I don't think it's a full proof plan.
The original question posed about how this guy was able to acquire guns is fair. I'm all for 2A, but not when it involves mentally ill people. This guy was mentally ill and had shown many signs of it. Someone with his history should not have been afforded the right to buy a gun.
And the issue of concealed weapons in school is still debatable. While it may have helped in a tragedy like this, how would it affect school in general? Would teachers fear giving poor grades to some students? Would students fear engaging in heated discussions? Knowing someone in a classroom is carrying a weapon adds a new dimension to everything.
It isn't to say I'm against it, just that it's not a simple issue. As a father I'd feel uncomfortable with my son or daughter in a classroom with a handful of untrained 19 year old boys carrying weapons. I would feel better if there was a training involved and possibly allowing more armed security on these larger campuses as a deterrent.
"Would teachers fear giving poor grades to some students? Would students fear engaging in heated discussions?"
So what saves a teacher giving out a bad grade from a kid who would shoot them is the cooling off period between when the grade is handed out and the time it takes to get the gun since they aren't carrying it at the moment? Not likely.
"To assume that some unexperienced 19 year old is going to rise up like Rambo and save the day during every school shooting is naive."
Your premise is flawed. Many people would be less inclined to go on a rampage if they thought they could be gunned down prior to getting off a couple shots. If I'm wrong, then why don't more people wander into police departments, courthouses (possibly the most contentious of places) or military bases and try to gun people down? The pattern is right in front of your nose. Psychos seek out areas they know they can get a high kill count before being fired on. Check out the psycho who was wounded at that church. Had that guard not shot him, he'd have killed MANY more. Good thing she went "Rambo".
Trying to prevent psychos form getting guns at legit stores is just putting your finger in the dam. He'll a way around your "fix". He can't find a way around a majority of the population armed.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
You honestly don't feel that having students carrying guns around campus would not change the dynamic of the school one bit? That teachers would not fear giving bad grades? Students wouldn't fear heated debates? Sporting events wouldn't turn chaotic?
Tons of students carry weapons in the Southside of Chicago. Tons of students know it. It hasn't stopped this from becoming one of the deadliest years for the Chicago Public School system. Not every murder is premeditated.
And this isn't to say I disagree with your point of view. I feel having more deterrents on campus is a good thing. I just don't necessarily agree with having those deterrents be 18 year old, hormone driven, emotionally charged teenagers. With the violence we are seeing amongst teenagers these days, especially against teachers, your plan opens the door for some serious problems. While it would decrease premeditated shootings, it would increase non-premeditated crimes.
The issue is more complex than throwing a 9mm in your kid's backpack and telling him to go Jack Bauer on anyone who opens fire in his classroom.
You honestly don't feel that having students carrying guns around campus would not change the dynamic of the school one bit? That teachers would not fear giving bad grades? Students wouldn't fear heated debates? Sporting events wouldn't turn chaotic?
I personally have had circumstances were I was very happy to have a gun at hand. I also have been very happy to have a bag nickel plated steel links at hand. I applaud your good fortune at never having to defend yourself.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I have had to defend myself, just never been in a situation where I needed a weapon to do so. I guess I'm lucky then.
My top 3 places I would always suggest banning weapons are sports arenas, bars and courthouses/jails. Basically any place that serves alcohol and has a tendancy to make normally law abiding people lose their minds (court houses and sports arenas).
"it would increase non-premeditated crimes."
I'd have to see some serious stats backing that up before I could be convinced to willingly give up my ability to defend myself from said emotionally charged morons.
"The issue is more complex than throwing a 9mm in your kid's backpack and telling him to go Jack Bauer"
You are right it is more complex. It is not just a single good guy vs many bad guys like your statement portrays. If 30 out of kids in a single college classroom are carrying and are competant with a firearm (something I think should be just as required as passing a drivers test), that changes the dynamic a lot. A single disgruntled kid who wants to act out in the heat of the moment oesn't have to worry about a single Jack Bauer. He has to worry about 30. The odds of any given scenario is that the majority of the people in a room are good people, so if we simply arm the majority, the minority of bad people will have to seriously think twice.
BTW, the Chicago explaination doesn't work since the ones packing heat are doing so illegaly. They are not the ones I want armed.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
"If 30 out of kids " => "If 30 out of 90 kids"
"the heat of the moment oesn't have to" => "the heat of the moment doesn't have to"
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
The legality of their gun ownership should have no barring on your statement. You stated that the fear of other students having guns in the classroom would lower the number of shootings. There is that fear in Chicago, yet school shootings continue to rise.
I think we agree on much more than you think. I would not have a problem with students carrying a weapon if they were certified and trained. And that training should pertain to how to handle the weapon indoors and in crowded situations. My preference is still with armed security guards and teachers, but I can find situations that would warrant a student handling a weapon.
Nonetheless, my point wasn't to argue about students carrying guns, but to argue that there are many more issues at stake here. These school shootings (and in fact school violence as a whole) goes well beyond just students carrying guns.
It's a societal issue, with a lot of factors. We have a lot of bad parenting going on in this country. Parents who want to treat their kids as "friend" and not sons or daughters. Lack of discipline and teaching about respect is prevalent in our youth. Society teaches kids that guns are used for seeking revenge, not self defense. We overlook warning signs and over prescribe drugs instead of dealing with the real issue. Security on campuses is poor, very poor.
Except maybe the last sentence.
I am repulsed when I hear people suggest "Maybe we need more security". I hate it when I hear stories of people huddled under their desks on the phone with 911 waiting for the police. 911 (and sercurity, etc) should be called to settle ongoing disputes or to pick up the bodies. People at the scene are responsible for the defense of the innocent and no one else. You cannot blame a police dept for taking too long to show up when a burgaler kills the child you are entrusted by God to protect but didn't because you were on the phone with 911.
I still reject your Chicago analogy since the ones with guns are not good people (or tehy are at best questionable people since they are breaking the law). I would not fear as much pulling a gun to mug someone in a neighborhood where all the thugs are carrying guns too. I would fear that if all of the upstanding citizens were carrying guns including the person I was mugging.
I do agree with the training statement though I might be more comfortable if it wasn't govt run. I especially encourage all parents to train their kids on the proper use of guns.
And as far as your belief that crazies shouldn't get guns, I sympathise but I don't want the govt get involved. Not only do I believe that bad people (including crazies) will get guns regardless, I don't want the govt extending that to anyone ever diagnosed with some case of Sumtinsumtinerother Depression (like I did when I was 16?) and you really leave that wide open to govt overstepping its control. I wouldn't have a problem if gun stores got together and determined their own policy, but if they get the right to know customer medical records before parents can even know if their kid got pregnant or had an abortion, I'm calling shenanigans.
I'm a firm believer in local govts determining policies for themselves like you, but I draw the line at certain inalienable rights. That's where you and I disagree.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
When I talk of security, I talk of campus security. Not the police department. Each college campus has a security force, and most do not arm their personnel. Most are also not trained properly in handling these issues. At my university, much of the staff was filled with students fulfilling a state work requirement for financial aid.
As for giving crazies guns, I still disagree. I'm not a fan of giving a guy like John Hinckley Jr. a weapon again.
I'm still hesitant to let the govt restrict the right to arms without due process. So we just got to disagree, and we'll figure out who was right when we get to heaven. Race you!
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
remember events such as this time and time again, and maybe someday our nation we'll wake up and say we will have this no more.
No more will we raise our children to be so full of pain and sorrow that they fell compelled to take the lives of others and themselves. No more will we raise our children by neglecting them for our own personel persuits. No more will we raise our children to be self indulgent pleasure seekers who believe they are their own god by doing whatever is right in their own eyes. No more will we raise our children in broken homes, but will stay faithful to our spouses till death do us part. No more will we raise our children by mankinds wisdom alone, but we will personally search for and trust in wisdom that comes from above. No more will we raise our children to not fully and truely understand that they have a creator that loves them unconditionally and who is more than enough to meet their genuine needs.
America when will we say, No more?
Is it really that hard to understand?
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
Poster - it's just Miami University, not Miami University of Ohio. Miami was a University before Florida was a state.
lawmakers in cities and states where universities are located. (By "this" I must assume that you mean they couldn't imagine 33 since there have been similar incidents involving less than 33 killed, most under circumstances with no armed person present to stop the killing at some point, but also some where an armed person did take down the murderer.
So if a similar incident happens tomorrow, you couldn't write the same argument as an apologist for the university on the one-year anniversary of that incident, right?
But then again, you also seem to oppose any new laws that incorporate the lessons sane people should have learned since the process of passing laws would be "political posturing."?
Must we be restricted to "come[ing] together as a stronger community, and strive to be better, stronger individuals as a result" and hoping that we perfect ourselves for the first time since Cain and Abel?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson