Virginia Tech school shooting

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Being a person who endured school for those same three T's, I see exactly where he was coming from. If a person just does not have the sheer force of will, or a place to get it to overcome the inner-turmoil of that, then we end up with stuff like this. Some people crack more easily than others, and here as well as in the past, we see the horrible outcomes of that. When that raw, pent-up emotion comes pouring forth dangerously, then only we take a brief notice. After the shock wears off,we go back to ignoring the red flags again.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

"Ironic therefore it is that Virginia is a concealed carry state and yet Virginia Tech campus recently enforced a policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus. According to gun rights activists such as Aaron Zelman of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms, VA Tech has "blood on its hands" for disarming the 21 victims who could potentially have defended themselves against the killer. "

To me, it seems like gun rights activists are using this tragedy as a political tool. Saying that VA Tech has "blood on its hands" because it prohibited firearms on campus is a ridiculous conclusion.

The solution isn't putting guns into schools, it's coming up with better ways to deal with bullying. Rather than letting the--as Cardero put it--three Ts fester until it comes out in a bloodbath, schools need to actively try to curb the harrassment.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Being a person who endured school for those same three T's, I see exactly where he was coming from. If a person just does not have the sheer force of will, or a place to get it to overcome the inner-turmoil of that, then we end up with stuff like this. Some people crack more easily than others, and here as well as in the past, we see the horrible outcomes of that. When that raw, pent-up emotion comes pouring forth dangerously, then only we take a brief notice. After the shock wears off,we go back to ignoring the red flags again.

Agreed. People still see bullying as normal behavior, and just "boys being boys," when in reality it is a seriously dangerous form of harrassment that scars a person no matter the age. Despite the evidence from all the school shootings, video games, music, and movies are being blamed. While I'm sure there are influences from these, I doubt they are the root cause.

 

[cardero]

Yeah, many people have disdain for the rich snobs and egotystical types that are all too rampant in todays world, but to use that as a reason to kill innocent people is beyond me. I sympathize with many of his feelings about how life is too centered around the amount of money one has. People can get to the point where they snap but it seems like he was quiet and didn't really talk to anyone, even when people tried talking to him.

Using this as an excuse (at least when I was going to school) was beyond me too. Pointing to this as a reason is just as dense as using video games or heavy metal music as an excuse. School shootings in today’s society is (for lack of a better term) "trendy". This young man Cho probably had many of the same choices to break through the other side as I had. If only he had weighed his options and had the vision to see the worth in himself that no one else would grant him. They don’t teach this kind of stuff in schools.

 

[Reverend Rick]

In America, the genie is out of the bottle. If you never sold another gun or bullet, our nation has a 100 year supply of ammunition and guns out there already.

Tighter restrictions on weapons just induces a more lucrative black market. Tougher gun laws only affect people who obey the law. Implementing a death penalty for gun possession has little affect on someone who goes on a shooting spree and saves the last bullet for himself.

Our unsecured borders would provide people with access to weapons even if you could remove all the guns we have in the country now. The war on drugs is the perfect example of this.

Gun free zones in America invites a gunman to do his bidding because he will do what ever he likes unchallenged. Our children are like fish in a barrel waiting for slaughter.

Gun free zones have the best of intentions, but laws on the books and paint on signs have no teeth. Will draconian laws have a greater affect on the situation?

What are the best gun free zones right now? Airports right? If you are serious about gun free zones, we would have to implement airport security at ever place of learning.

If you do not address the real issue here, which is lack of security, nothing will ever improve and will actually get worse with more copy cat shootings.

I do not understand how 24 students could be lined up in front of a black board and each be shot several times, one by one and no one oppose this man. You would at least think when he went to reload, that might be a good time to rush him. If you do nothing you will die. If you attempt something, you might die. This is a no-brainier to me.

People are taught to not fight. It worked out real well for 24 people in the same room. Why did they all not rush the shooter? Why not throw a desk or stab him with a pencil? Knowing your fate and doing nothing is very sad.

Gun free zones are the most well intentioned laws ever written. Let's keep guns away from children. Guns could accidentally go off and hurt someone. An accidental discharge pales by comparison to the VT shooting.

If we are going to have gun free zones, there needs to be the security in place to insure they are gun free. If you cannot insure that they are gun free, then people should be allowed to personally be in charge of their protection.

There is no middle ground. Either protect the students 100% or admit that a silly sign that declares an area is gun free is a sad joke and one of the greatest disappointments of our generation.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

The bottom line is if you really want to do something there is always a way, if there wasn't how the hell does prisoner "X" in a maximum security prison get dope or run their criminal empire from inside bars? I don't know about you but the idea of a national lockdown and a daily full body cavity search does not appeal to me but I'm sure the weak see no problem with it, they want "daddy" government to sing them to sleep at night, telling them a bedtime story so they will fell safe and warm. Sorry folks, you can't regulate or legislate stupidity or mental illness, no one saw it coming if they did they would have done something, hindsight is always 20/20. So instead of blaming everything under the sun except the mental screw-up that would not/could not seek help lets come to grips that no matter how safe "authorities" want you to believe they can make you through legislation, the fact of the matter is that you are the only one responsible for your own well being and the well being of your loved ones legal or illegal, accepted or not, doing what it takes to insure that at least you have a chance in the rare possibility that you might actually have to deal with it I'd say is a virtue of self preservation and honor, I'd say the rest are just lemmings waiting for a handout, you deserve exactly what you get, you have given up your right to live because you entrusted it into the hands of others to protect you. Unless you take it upon yourselves and only yourselves to protect your own interests you are just the the living dead that refuse to lie down.

 

[PureX]

I don't know how it is in other countries but the movie industry in the U.S. is constantly portraying a culture that has no limits and this is being reflected more and more in our society. Freedom does not mean the right to harm others. Freedom of expression is something we value dearly but we we must balance the things that we hold dear with the things we hold dearer. The minds of our children. I look around and see so much potential for love and knowledge and love of knowledge in the children I see. We need to unplug our televisions and let the life around them teach them.

Yes, deadly force is commonly portrayed in our culture as the only reasonable solution to the "hero's" problems with other people. And we now have generations that have grown up thinking this way. It's a big part of why so many Americans think that having guns in their house so they can kill any potential invader is the only possible solution to a home invasion. It's a big reason that street gangs think that they all have to have guns, and must solve their disputes with other gangs by killing them. And this image does provide very violent illusions of power and revenge for people who are mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Just look at the pictures and text that this latest mass killer sent to the New York Times: many of the images have him posing exactly as seen in recent violence-glorifying movies. And the nonsensical text repeats his paranoid delusion that have been building on themselves into this explosion of violent revenge against his fellow human beings. He most certainly was seeing himself as both a victim and a hero, exactly as though he were a character in any of many of these violent revenge theme movies.

 

[jacquie4000]

I do not understand how 24 students could be lined up in front of a black board and each be shot several times, one by one and no one oppose this man. You would at least think when he went to reload, that might be a good time to rush him. If you do nothing you will die. If you attempt something, you might die. This is a no-brainier to me.

People are taught to not fight. It worked out real well for 24 people in the same room. Why did they all not rush the shooter? Why not throw a desk or stab him with a pencil? Knowing your fate and doing nothing is very sad.

MY mom was saying this the other night. She said even though no matter what some would die what did they not rush him try anything. I agree but it is hard to say since we were not there. We don't know how one will react when in a situation. It only takes one person to make that move but no one did.

 

[PureX]

Tighter restrictions on weapons just induces a more lucrative black market. Tougher gun laws only affect people who obey the law. Implementing a death penalty for gun possession has little affect on someone who goes on a shooting spree and saves the last bullet for himself.

Interestingly enough, tougher gun laws probably would have stopped this particular nut from getting guns. For one thing, if people could only get guns from a "black market", a lot of people wouldn't know how to negociate that market. And for another thing, guns that could only be gotten on a black market will cost a lot more than the average college kid could afford.

And besides this, using your logic, we may as well legalize drugs, tanks, missiles, pornography, and anything else that we currently try to "control" with laws. Because by your reasoning, laws just lead to black markets, and have no effct at all on the community's behavior, because the "good" people don't do bad things, anyway, and the "bad" people will just do as they please regardless.

Our unsecured borders would provide people with access to weapons even if you could remove all the guns we have in the country now. The war on drugs is the perfect example of this.

So are you suggesting that we make all drugs legal?

Gun free zones in America invites a gunman to do his bidding because he will do what ever he likes unchallenged. Our children are like fish in a barrel waiting for slaughter.

But most of the people who are killed by guns are not killed by crazy gun-toting strangers, like this guy in the news, or by hardened criminals. The vast majority of people killed by gun violence in America knew the people who killed them, and in fact were probably even related or married to them. The vast majority of people killed by guns are not killed by criminals, they are killed by friends and family members who are drunk, drugged up, in a rage, or otherwise emotionally despondant. And if they didn't have such easy access to a gun in that moment of emotional crisis, it's very likely that the crimes they committed would never have happened. They simply would have sobered up, and forgot about it.

Gun free zones have the best of intentions, but laws on the books and paint on signs have no teeth. Will draconian laws have a greater affect on the situation?

Why are you assuming that the only possible method of gun control must be a total banning of guns, and "gun free zones"?

If you do not address the real issue here, which is lack of security, nothing will ever improve and will actually get worse with more copy cat shootings.

We will have more copycat killings because we have not addressed the real problem, and that is how do we keep guns out of the hands of idiots and lunatics.

I do not understand how 24 students could be lined up in front of a black board and each be shot several times, one by one and no one oppose this man. You would at least think when he went to reload, that might be a good time to rush him. If you do nothing you will die. If you attempt something, you might die. This is a no-brainier to me.

That's easy to see while sitting on your couch at home.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's easy to see while sitting on your couch at home

That's what I was thinking, too.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

MY mom was saying this the other night. She said even though no matter what some would die what did they not rush him try anything. I agree but it is hard to say since we were not there. We don't know how one will react when in a situation. It only takes one person to make that move but no one did.

This is an excellent point!

Fear can freeze people. They may have been thinking, "Maybe he's bluffing," or "Maybe someone else will make the move."

Still, it is a good point about people being trained not to fight. I was bullied a lot in public school; growing up with a father interested in the martial arts certainly helped, as it gave me the confidence and ability to stand up for myself. But I always tried to avoid the fight when I could, which often led me to the principle's office to explain the situation where I may have to defend myself. The response was always: Don't fight back! I was even told once to go into a ball and take it until help arrived. It horrified me! The psychological repercussions of being beaten up are bad enough, but to just let it happen...I couldn't imagine.

 

[jacquie4000]

Still, it is a good point about people being trained not to fight. I was bullied a lot in public school; growing up with a father interested in the martial arts certainly helped, as it gave me the confidence and ability to stand up for myself. But I always tried to avoid the fight when I could, which often led me to the principle's office to explain the situation where I may have to defend myself. The response was always: Don't fight back! I was even told once to go into a ball and take it until help arrived. It horrified me! The psychological repercussions of being beaten up are bad enough, but to just let it happen...I couldn't imagine.

My mom had brought it up because she was thinking of 911 and the plane that went down in Pa. I think to myself. I would be more than willing to sacrifice myself and rush him in hopes someone else would stand up with me, or everyone. But unless it happened to me I have no idea what my reaction would be at that moment or if I would even be quick enough to respond, once out of that shock period.

They had on the news this morning that he was required back in 05 to get an emotional evalution on his mental health to see if he was a danger to himself or others. The judge at the time said he did have emotional problems but did not need to be admitted in house, he could get counseling. If he would have been placed in house for treatment he would not have been allowed to buy guns.

 

[PureX]

This is an excellent point!

Fear can freeze people. They may have been thinking, "Maybe he's bluffing," or "Maybe someone else will make the move."

Still, it is a good point about people being trained not to fight. I was bullied a lot in public school; growing up with a father interested in the martial arts certainly helped, as it gave me the confidence and ability to stand up for myself. But I always tried to avoid the fight when I could, which often led me to the principle's office to explain the situation where I may have to defend myself. The response was always: Don't fight back! I was even told once to go into a ball and take it until help arrived. It horrified me! The psychological repercussions of being beaten up are bad enough, but to just let it happen...I couldn't imagine.

Then again, if we teach our kids that violence is the proper responce to violence, wouldn't our whole society just become more and more violent? In fact, isn't the reason this society is so violent already mostly because people do believe that violence is the proper responce to pretty much every dissagreement they have with other people?

What we should be teaching our kids isn't to "fight back", but how to defend themselves from an attack. This is the distinction that our movie and TV producers never make, and this is why violence is escallating in our culture. That crazy gunman thought of himself as "fighting back", too.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Then again, if we teach our kids that violence is the proper responce to violence, wouldn't our whole society just become more and more violent? In fact, isn't the reason this society is so violent already mostly because people do believe that violence is the proper responce to pretty much every dissagreement they have with other people?

What we should be teaching our kids isn't to "fight back", but how to defend themselves from an attack. This is the distinction that our movie and TV producers never make, and this is why violence is escallating in our culture. That crazy gunman thought of himself as "fighting back", too.

Good point, and I agree with this. There is a difference between self-defense and what this fellow did.

There are different forms of violence, though. And sometimes in order to defend yourself, a violent response may be necessary. For instance, someone trying to stab me may end up with a broken wrist: my response was violent, but not overly so. It was necessary to protect myself.

What Hollywood often portrays is different. Chuck Norris doesn't get an appropriate response during interrogation, he puts a knife into someone's hand. But I have to question just how much this Hollywood influence has on young people that do this. How many Hollywood heroes react to adversity the way this fellow did, with all his cursing, ranting, and raving he did on camera? It seems as if he was associating with the bad guys a bit more...

His response was inappropriate to the adversity he faced, but I'm not in his shoes. I feel some pity for him; he must have some rough times indeed. It doesn't make right what he did, but I still feel sorry for the victims--him included.

 

[PureX]

Good point, and I agree with this. There is a difference between self-defense and what this fellow did.

There are different forms of violence, though. And sometimes in order to defend yourself, a violent response may be necessary. For instance, someone trying to stab me may end up with a broken wrist: my response was violent, but not overly so. It was necessary to protect myself.

What Hollywood often portrays is different. Chuck Norris doesn't get an appropriate response during interrogation, he puts a knife into someone's hand. But I have to question just how much this Hollywood influence has on young people that do this. How many Hollywood heroes react to adversity the way this fellow did, with all his cursing, ranting, and raving he did on camera? It seems as if he was associating with the bad guys a bit more...

His response was inappropriate to the adversity he faced, but I'm not in his shoes. I feel some pity for him; he must have some rough times indeed. It doesn't make right what he did, but I still feel sorry for the victims--him included.

In this specific case, I think the guy was seriously messed up in the head. He was imagining foes where none actually existed, and he was seeing everything in bizarre and alternating extremes. In one sentance he'd refer to himself as both the victim and the criminal. He was basically completely lost in some bizarre ego-fantasy that had little to do with actuality, and everything to do with the delusions running amok in his head. As I watched those clips, I couldn't help but suspect that he may have had some serious chemical imballances going on in his mind. I suppose we'll never know, now. But I really don't think this guy was responding to reality at all. I think he was living completely in a landscape that existed only in his head.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I couldn't help but suspect that he may have had some serious chemical imballances going on in his mind.

I did read something about him being on anti-depressants. I'm not up-to-date on the issue, but for awhile they were being blamed for causing some serious chemical imbalances. Obviously, if he was on anti-depressants, he had some psychological problems to begin with. I wonder if these drugs may have some influence...

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

This may or may not belong in this thread about the killings, but I actually feel sorry for the shooter as well as the victims. The tapes he made have been released and you can feel the pain he was in. I cannot imagine the psychological issues a person has to have that drives them not only to kill others but themselves also. Instead of calling them crazy and leaving it at that, why don't people see warning signs and try to do something about them?
One of the professors at the school did notice his unusual behaviour and reported it. He stalked two girls, and burned a dorm room. These are some of the reddest flags ever, and no one took real notice of that. He was calling for help through all of this, before it got to a boiling point for him. I don't excuse the behaviour, bu sane well adjusted people don't do these things.

He wasn't calling for help. Calling for help requires actually seeking it. There are all sorts of things he could've done if that were the case. Instead he spent a lot of time preparing to kill others and constructing that pathetic self-aggrandising manifesto of his. Likely this guy had enormous pride but was tormented by the fact he came over as dull and annoying. Rather than deal with that he indiscriminately killed and hurt as many people as possible.

I feel sorry that he was in such pain but to have done what he did is so ugly.

 

[greatcalgarian]

...try to listen to non-American giving their opinion, and just jump into conclusion of ignorance ugly head raising again, ...

Opinions are like noses. Everybody has one.

I'd prefer to consider opinions that are informed. That's not egoism. That's just refusing to waste my time on an opinion based on fantasy instead of fact.

If you don't like that, you could always try a different tack and try and find out what it's really like here before you go off on your obnoxious rampage of trying to "fix" us all here.

Physician...heal thyself.

Last I noticed, individual Americans are not the American gov't and do not make policy, nor do we necessarily approve of policies.

Any other conclusions you'd like to jump at right now?

I think you are the one who jump into conclusion and never digest or accept other people's opinion, and blanketed with comment like anti American obnoxious rampage .....

What conclusion you were saying I have jumped into? Perhaps you are the one who have been jumping into conclusions most of the time.

 

[Comprehend]

an interesting real world case study...

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288


As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender

 

[PureX]

an interesting real world case study...

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288


As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender

How many shootings would there have been in Kennisaw, Georgia, anyway? It proves nothing. Not to mention that it can't possibly be legal to mandate that people own a gun, or own enything else for that matter. It's just redneck nonsense.