Why?

A word from our sponsor:

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

I kept waiting for one of our more articulate members to post some meaningful comments on the incident at Virgina Tech on Monday, but as nobody else has spoken up, I feel compelled to do so.

I guess I'm showing my age, I just don't understand what is going on these days. Why do people, especially the younger generation, feel that violence is an acceptable means of handling a situation? When I was growing up, there were plenty of guns around, and lots of teen angst, yet we didn't start shooting at random people. The shooting at VT is just the bloody peak of a trend towards settling any dispute with a gun. Last year in the town I used to live in, a young man was angry that he had been denied entrance to a party being held in a motel room, so he pulled out a gun and started shooting into the room. The result was one killed and two others in jail awaiting trial on murder charges. What positive thing was accomplished here? Did the young man who pulled the trigger think this would somehow get him admitted to more parties in the future? Did he even think?

Thursday is also the anniversary of the April 19th, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, an incident with which I and my brother were much too personally involved in, as a college friend of his was killed in the bombing, and he spent several days keeping the friend's wife company before the body was finally located and recovered. I, in turn, helped him each night when he came home from work; having spent the day in Okla. City and then working his regular evening shift at work.

I know I don't have any answers, just a lot of questions, and a few opinions. The whole gun control issue, for one thing. To me, it's totally bogus to say things like this wouldn't happen if guns were banned. Everyday people can't buy high explosives either, but Tim McVey managed to kill 168 people using other, more commonly available items. So let us not even go there.

What I see is a serious flaw in the fabric of our society. When it's okay to hate others, and acceptable to act on that hate, we have a problem.

What is going on? Why are these things happening? I don't know, but I believe we need to find out, and do something about it.

My deepest sympathies and heartfelt anguish for the people at Virgina Tech. God Bless you all.

Karen J.

Comments

Well said.

Well said Karen and all I have to add is my own sympathies and hope that the survivors and their families can find healing.
God Bless.
grover

If I had the answer to this I'd make a fortune

Karen,

not a clue as to why. The usual clap-trap on the TV -- loner, kept to himself , yada yada -- not very helpful.

What is remarkable is this violence is occuring in a time where ritual public violence is faiding out or is certainly not well suported. We don't have bear-baiting and other cruel sports legally anymore. The Roman's idea of public entertainment in the Collesium would make most modern people sick. Dualing is illegal as is slavery, so we are making progress. Lynchings were sadly popular once but for the most part that is a thing of the past.

In lab studies, animals subject to excessive crowding can tend towards violence. Is this a sign it's time to put the brakes on growth for growths sake?

Much of this is just the way news works these days. John Rockefeller had striking minors machine-gunned back in the 1920's(?) and though it was news it was not afforded the overkill of this event as tragic as it is. If it doesn't have action or something you can show and entertain the masses, it is not TV news, or newspaper news to an increasing extent.

It could be we are reaping the harvest of several generations of single parent homes and a severe under supply and underuse of mental heath assests. In the past it was too easy to lock them up and forget them; nowdays we forget them, period. The pernicously high levels of poverty and near poverty for childern as opposed to the elderly -- who as a whole are far better off than they were in the 1960s when Pres. Johnson declared war on poverty -- doesn't help.

You may breath now.

Just a few trial balloons to pop. If I really knew the answer I'd be a genius. Bill and Ted did have it right, though.

Be excellent to each other AND party on dudes! What the heck happend to good old tolerance and agreeing to disagree?

John in Wauwatosa

John in Wauwatosa

My Thoughts

Frank's picture

There was bullying when I grew up in the 70s and it exists today, but it seems with each generation it's gotten crueler and more humiliating for the victims. I've played the violent video games like DOOM, Quake...I don't believe that would influence someone to do the same thing in real life. I played Dungeons and Dragons growing up. We were quite imaginative about how to kill off characters. No one we know took a gun to school.

There is something wrong with society today..I remember in the 80's being horrified that they MODIFIED Bugs Bunny and other cartoons because they were "too violent" when I grew up with them how they were made. The 80's version of Popeye wasn't allowed to throw a punch...the kids that grew up with all this PC garbage are the same kids who are shooting up schools and others. I don't mean to say that political correctness is responsible, but editing things like that and censoring honest free speech/debate in schools and colleges is just repression, it's not a solution.

Parents and Teachers need to be involved more in their kids lives and know what's going on...schools must crack down on bullying when it becomes extreme (I don't think it can be eliminated). Parents must help their kids and the friends of their kids if possible when they see something might be wrong. Unfortunately it's hard for parents today unlike when I grew up where my dad worked and mom stayed home. Most families today need the two incomes to survive. That must make it so much hard to be a parent to some degree, but at the same time these parents need to be vigilant as to what their kids are involved in.

I'm not a big believer in the gun control movement in general as if someone wants to get a gun, they will get it legitimately or off the streets, they aren't hard to find. I do think it should set off some kind of warning when someone buys more than one gun in s short amount of time as was the case at Virginia Tech. Also maybe not allow full time students to buy a gun until after they graduate came to mind yesterday.

The above was kind of a stream of consiousness as it were..but it is how I feel..

My prayers and deepest sympathy to the students and their families...


Huggles!!

Alexis

Hugs

Frank

England's not far behind

My heart goes out to all the people who wound up on the wrong end of that horrific shooting.

I can't stress enough how saddened I am that this kind of thing happens. I know too that blaming firearms will have zero effect too as they weren't available, the result would still be that some poor bastard winds up on a slab usually through just happening to be there.

We really need to spend more time finding out what it is that makes people do this.

We in England don't know why that man went wild in Hungerford and shot up all those innocent people all those years ago and nowadays, a shooting somewhere even over here doesn't even make the main news.

Why not?

Perhaps it's the way we are. If we don't understand something we fight it or kill it - isn't that the way?

Why do you think that aliens haven't landed or the Son of God hasn't reappeared? It's because they're scared shitless of being disected or shot, that's why.

It seems this behaviour is all too frequent nowadays and unless something is done globally (it's not only the US that has this problem), it won't be safe for anyone.

Peace

Nick B

Dealing in death -- wholesale and retail

The events at VT were tragic, no question. The on-going events in Baghdad and Darfur are equally tragic.

Some of these tragedies are in the public awareness, some are not. How many know that in 2005 over 43,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents.

I agree that there are serious flaws in our society. We have disturbing blind spots that allow people to die meaninglessly.

I don't know what all the answers are, either. I do believe that it would help if more people were more aware of what is going on in their world and speak out against stupidity and ignorance.

Perhaps it is time to really hold public officials accountable for their jobs. How many times do we see in the media where a public official is asked a direct question that is answered with double-speak? How often does legislation get passed that benefits moneyed interests and not the common weal?

The media are also culpable. How often real issues are left wanting for attention while the public are diverted by some celebrity scandal? This sort of misdirection tends to keep the public sated and unaware of the real issues.

The bottom line is that we are all responsible. Each of us as individuals has the responsibility to speak out for truth and equality. This is a difficult thing to do. It is much easier to sit comfortably back and be entertained than to get up, speak out, and do the responsible thing.

If we are to have a better world, we are going to have to work at it. We already know what happens if we sit around and do nothing.

Janet

Mistress of the Guild of Evil Blonde Proofreaders

Janet

Mistress of the Guild of Evil [Strawberry] Blonde Proofreaders
TracyHide.png

To be or not to be... ask Schrodinger's cat.

Re: Dealing in death -- wholesale and retail

Okay then, let's do it.

To start with, might I suggest a WORLD goverment?

At least that might get us all onto something of an even footing.

Laws change from country to country and some places face more problems than others. Perhaps we should look at those places where this isn't a problem and ask: Why?

Love and blame

Please don't let this become a political discussion, at least not yet (and I admit that is as hard for me as it is for anyone.). After such a thing it always turns into a blame game. (like the people saying the school should have been 'locked down'. How do you do that with 30,000+ people and 50-60 or more buildings?)

This was not about politics, and I don't believe it was something new. Billy the Kid, and Bonnie and Clyde were serial killers, (although I like the folk tales we've built around them better too). In the Talmud there is a rhetorical situation about a man wielding a knife entering a house and then six people being found dead inside; so mass murders were not unheard of even then (though the technology has 'improved' - but no politics.) Hearing about such things quickly brings us closer to them and changes our perception of them, however IMHO.

This was not about politics. It was about a very lonely and very hurt person. Some will tell me that statement is politics too (some already have.). Maybe. It is not that I don't believe in evil and blame everything on 'society', but I believe evil too has a genesis. As a student this man - person - boy had better access to medical and psychiatric care than most Americans (politics again - damn it.), but people who need such care are always the least likely to seek it. I just think that - maybe, maybe - a community of care might have helped. But then again, this is not new, and we like to believe that the uncaring world is something new, and the rural world kinder, so maybe that would not have helped either. But I want to believe it would have helped, somehow. It couldn't have hurt; could it?? (Hell maybe it could have - small worlds create their own frustrations.)

But I still believe that some kind of kindness at some time is the only answer. Hug a wacko today - NO, don't invade their personal space - Smile at a wacko today - or something. Maybe it will save a life

Then again maybe the apocalypses is nigh, but even then a smile wouldn't hurt, would it?

{sigh}
Jan

Society and politics

Yes, it is common (and misleading) to 'blame society'. Still, we are social animals. And the way we 'manage' ourselves is through a political process.

My point is that as individuals we have a duty to to ourselves and our neighbors to act responsibly and be a positive influence in our social and political activities.

This won't cure all the world's problems, but it will be a good start.

Janet

Mistress of the Guild of Evil Blonde Proofreaders

Janet

Mistress of the Guild of Evil [Strawberry] Blonde Proofreaders
TracyHide.png

To be or not to be... ask Schrodinger's cat.

Not a political discussion?

Erin (below) has indicated that the discussion isn't pushing her rules. And my take is that this needs a political discussion - but not a Political face-off.

'Polis' is the etymological root of politics, policy, police... and imports governance by the body of citizens. Few Politicians of any hue get my respect. Bob Worcester (founder of MORI) said in a lecture I attended that Politicians were right down at the bottom of the trustworthness scale; even below journalists. In the end it will be Society that makes any improvement. I've long ago given up any hope of leadership from Politicians on this - anything with a horizon of more than a few weeks is too slow for them, and what is needed here will be slow and hard.

I am neutral on 'carrying' - we don't have it here in the UK (except for a few very special cases - Ian Paisley is alleged to be one) and I believe that here it should remain that way. In the US that genie is long out of the bottle, and concealed carrying may be beneficial. Or not; not only do I not presume to have a hard opinion on another country/culture, but "life is an experiment without controls" and we can only guess if the results are meaningful. I've seen many arguments for both points of view and picked holes in all of them.

What does strike me as slightly hopeful in Aardvark's postings is that the controls on concealed carriers seem to tend in the direction of our own controls, and those in Australia evidenced by Kristina LS.

I am not neutral on the question of possesion. I used to shoot handguns when they were legal here; as Secretary of our Shooting Club - and thus the named person on the Club's FAC (licence) - it was my dolorous duty to hand-in the Club's guns for destruction when the law changed as a result of Dunblane. But as Club Secretary I had already introduced most of the control measures that Clubs were subsequently required to operate when the law changed, because it seemed to me that before the change in the law the system of control in place was insufficient.

There, I believe that the problem was not one of legislation, and many tales of man's inhumnity to man seem to me in the same case. The breaking story here about the exploitation of the (legal) immigrants from Eastern Europe is a case in point. We have plenty of relevant legislation (easy for the politicians) but grossly insufficient enforcement (costs money, requires diffcult decisions, doesn't lick the arses of the media moguls nor provide bread and circuses as distraction for the masses...)

One thing that does bother me flows from Prof Steve Jones' assertion that the human race has stopped evolving (that's a monster simplification that he deliberately uses to gain attention - read him, don't flame me, please!). Our ability to keep alive more damaged people (be that physical or neurological) may well be increasing the spread of the causative genes in our gene pool, instead of those genes being selected out. My worry is not that this is happening - I'd defend the right to life of such people with my own - but that in many areas our ability to deal with the damage and its consequences is not keeping up with the increase in the damage; and that societal dysfunction is magnifying the problems of those with neurological damage.

I was reading recently about High-Reliability businesses. Their managements expect things to go wrong, and equally expect to learn from every instance. Reporting of errors/problems/exceptions is also expected, encouraged and rewarded. Reported zero-error rates are regarded not as an achievement but as either deliberate under-reporting or as a signal that standards could be higher. We can only improve if we are willing to learn; and that applies to society at large as well.

On a positive note pace Erin, I'm encouraged by the way this thread - and this site in general - has not descended to a slanging match about our late (and unlamented) 'friend' Adolf. Unlike so many. Pehaps from such small beginings...

Pessimism is not an option.

Xi

Note to those who think it macho to fire guns into the air to celebrate: please ensure that the muzzle is firmly lodged under your chin before squeezing the trigger.

Better Diagnosis

This is not going to be a popular opinion. So what.

I am hoping for more mental health awareness and diagnosis. Sure, the kid was responsible but I still think that we could have perhaps prevented this.

Khadija

I don't have the answers

If I could say "do this" and know it would prevent the harm done, I certainly would. Even using 20/20 hindsight, the answers are not clear. Heck, the questions are still vague.

Obviously, something wasn't done that should have been done. At least, I want to believe that there was a "something" that could have been done to prevent what happened, and what might happen in the future. I just know society is always quick to seize the fast and simple solution, and I fear that will not prove to be the "right" solution.

Karen J.

"A dress makes no sense unless it inspires men to want to take it off you."
Francoise Sagan


"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin

Insane

Cho was insane.

People are already making excuses for him, even building a memorial for him, if you can believe it, but there was something wrong with him since he was a boy in Korea. He was teased in Middle School -- big deal, nearly everyone was for some reason or another. Numerous attempts were made to reach out, which he rejected. One teacher was so afraid of him -- she recalls him having a serious "mean streak" -- that she had officers stand by in case he went off the handle, and later had him removed from her class because of complaints from female students. I sympathize to the extent that his was a wasted life, and likely ruined from the start by a latent birth defect, but anything past that -- no. Interestingly, my son's girlfriend's best friend was one of those young women murdered. (My son and his GF don't go to VT, BTW)

This was not a tragedy. I reserve that word for earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and the stock market falling. This was cold-blooded murder like 9/11, 7/7, and "suicide" bombers blowing up innocent people. It's important to know the difference. One should engender a sense of sadness, the other, justifiable rage.

I've read something about the case: Cho was ordered to undergo psychiatric counseling (IIRC) after complaints that he was stalking a pair of coeds, but the psychiatrist who analyzed him wrote that he was a danger to himself, and not the critical "danger to others." On that basis, the judge ordered outpatient treatment and drugs to control him, instead of the mandatory commitment that would have registered on the weapon's background check (Virginia has its own set of laws; other states vary). He had no connection to the young woman he killed or the young man who might have tried to stop him in the first killings in the dorm next door.

What would have stopped him? A better psychiatric diagnosis, a change in the law on what psychological treatment is registered, and a removal of the gun-free zone on campus, which the VT President was so happy to implement to be "safe." What a blithering bleeding-heart idiot. The SOB should resign in disgrace, which he will never do because, to him, his "feelings" and "good intentions" about the "evil" guns are more important than making rational decisions that affect the lives of the student body -- a form of insanity, IMO. Virtually all the mass murders in the last decade or so in the US committed with firearms were done in gun-free zones, where the perps knew it was open season. Other potential mass murders during this time frame were stopped or mitigated when students or teachers ran to their cars and brought back their personal weapons. I don't think this is a coincidence.

Not trying to offend anyone or make this political, just commonsensical. As you can tell, I have rather strong feelings on the matter.

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

societal individual

kristina l s's picture

or perhaps a by product...

I was going to leave this one alone. Not being a US citizen I am really not qualified to comment beyond basic empathy. Some time back we had a disturbed young man decide one day to go out and shoot as many people as he could at a popular tourist site. He did just that with a couple of automatic rifles. Thirty Five died, twenty two were wounded... he fired sixty four rounds in a little over twenty minutes. Children, parents, whoever was there. He was in all sorts of pain... and our mental health system is at least as shoddy as yours. Could he... should he have been helped earlier? Oh yes.... But will and money.. not easy to come by. Does the fact he was and is in pain help? Especially those who saw or knew...I very much doubt it. Oh and don't even mention the conspiracy theories.

This... event.. Prompted a big crack down on guns in this country. The laws were already tough, particularly for handguns. Now they are a lot tougher. Restrictions on type and capacity, yearly licenses, police checks, mandatory club memberships and regular checks. Storage in approved safes etc... Has this halted gun crime? ..nope. In fact our stats per capita are not far behind you guys... except in the homicide and suicide area. That alone gives pause for thought I think.

It seems ridiculous to claim that if everyone had a gun he would have been stopped much earlier. Maybe... but how many others would have been wounded or killed in a shoot out or in separate incidents. I don't believe guns should be banned... But they should be a hell of a lot harder to get than they are. Ready availability makes it simpler to reach and pull the trigger... any kid can do it. A few have. Sure there's other ways... but you have to work a bit harder. Might mean the difference.

I actually saw a news report where the guy that sold him one of his guns was interviewed and seemed quite happy with the whole thing. When asked about the laws in Australia and all the guns that had been destroyed under Govt changes to regulation... he replied it made him sad. He was more bothered by guns being destroyed than the death of 33 people by someone using at least one weapon he had sold to said gunman.

It is a lot easier to kill a bunch of people quickly with a gun than by most other methods. Ready availability makes it easier again. The disturbed young man here is in prison and has attempted suicide several times. Do I have any answers? No I don't.
But a whole bunch of people going about their day, kids mostly,... doing ordinary stuff... are no more. How can that be other than a tragedy?
Can Government or society solve the problem? Maybe... but it will take an awful lot of thought... backed with will. I doubt yours or ours has the ability.
Kristina

A Gulf of Incomprehension ...

... exists between the USA and Western Europe on the subject of gun control.

There is no 'right to bear arms' lobby in the UK and the only hand gun that it is legally possible for a normal citizen to acquire is a muzzle loader. One needs a certificate for a shotgun which is only available after a lengthy police interview and which has to be kept in a specially locked arms cupboard.

A few exceptions exist for firearms but these are rare indeed and subject to a strict license. Effectively legislation introduced after the Dunblane Massacre finally prohibited British citizens from owning hand guns.

The only real opposition to this came from people who bemoaned the fact that we would no longer be able to successfully compete for various Olympic medals. They can always go and shoot in France though. There is of course a historical precedent for killing as many Frenchmen as possible so this chimes well with our national phsyche.

The criminal fraternity can get guns and having got them frequently shoot them and kill people, but fortunately usually such victims are from within their own criminal community. There is, I understand, a flourishing business in converting replicas but as such are prone to kill the firer as well as the firee only the more impoverished criminal willingly resorts to them.

The rest of us live in a gun free culture and it seems inconceivable to us that it should be otherwise. But then we were lucky in that we never did have guns, or only very few of them. It would I suppose now be impossible to establish the same happy circumstance in the States as there must be millions of the things floating about. So to try to ban them would probably be a waste of time. You just don't have enough criminals to take up the slack.

I don't know what the answer is. But surely there must be some way of cutting down on the butcher's bill?

I find the 'guns don't kill, people do' argument a mite specious. One might as well say, and with equal justification, 'spades don't dig, people do'. Well .... yes .... but without a spade one doesn't dig very much. It's not really worthwhile even trying on any significant scale.

And any way it is bullets that kill. Men fire guns, guns fire bullets and bullets kill men. Now of those factors, it seems easier to remove either bullets and/or guns rather than men from the mix.

So it all seems very foreign viewed from over here. But I don't really see what can be done. You just have too many guns already in circulation.

By the way incomprehension doesn't mean that we are not, that I am not, desperately sorry for the victims and families at Virginia Tec. We are quite appalled at the suffering.

Fleurie

Fleurie

Societal Individual

The title is a pretty good description of the issue. There was a more or less similar thread on the Cyberboard about a year ago, and I did a fair amount of research. The US has always been, shall we say, more rambunctious than Britain. Comparing the stats of London and New York going back two centuries, New York murders have always been multiples of London. This continued even when firearms in both cities were common in the late 19th century.

Most Europeans have a difficult time understanding the American gun culture, and how it is possible that more guns in citizens' hands can possibly equal less crime, yet it is so. I refer to the concealed carry laws. It varies from place to place, but when concealed carry laws are put into effect, it either does not affect the crime rate, or there is a decrease. Why? Because, while the regulations aren't the same in every state, it is generally quite tough to get a concealed carry permit. The background check is the first step, to make sure you are a law-abiding citizen -- criminals don't apply for concealed carry permits. After that, you have to take classes on gun law and gun handling and safety, demonstrating your ability on the range. Then, in most cases (maybe in all cases), the owner must pass a test. It isn't free, either. You have to be motivated, in other words, and the crime rate for concealed carry guns is extremely low -- virtually nonexistent.

Criminals hate concealed carry laws because that little 100 lbs. woman might just be packing a .45. Miss America 1944, Venus Ramey, an 82 year-old woman, recently shot out the tires of a truck trying to make off with some of her goods on her farm with her .38, then flagged down a car and had them call 911. It's positively dangerous to try to break into a house over here. It's why break-ins and muggings are so low in the US, and, even with the high murder rate (compared to the UK, although not to all European countries, by any means) why overall violent crime is less than the UK, France, Belgium, and most of the world.

So, could a couple of people with concealed carry weapons in those engineering classes have stopped Cho? I'd say the odds were pretty good. It certainly wouldn't be the first time armed citizens have stopped crimes in progress. Cho went methodically around each room, up and down the rows, shooting each person, then repeating when he saw survivors. Those who didn't have the chance to jump out the windows mainly just ducked behind their desks or tried to cover up. I don't accuse the students of cowardice. Cho had two guns, and it is possible, depending on the weapon, to reload a semi-automatic pistol singlehandedly within a couple of seconds. The recorded sounds over the cell phone showed that he continued a steady, fairly rapid cadence from both the Walther P22 and the Glock 9mm (they make different noises: the .22 is like a "crack!" and the 9mm is more like a "boom!"). As far as I know, he only took a break when he went between rooms. Rushing the man would have been suicide; it would have taken the equivalent of a few Medal of Honor winners all leaping at him at the same time to take him out.

Under those conditions, however, I could easily see an armed and well-trained man or woman (as CC people generally are) removing him while he was concentrating on doing his grisly work in some other row, or especially, if he tried to break into the classroom. It wouldn't have stopped all the murders, but the body count would have likely would have been much less, and, lest we forget, Cho knew that no one was carrying a firearm. Would he have tried it at all if he thought people would be shooting back? Hmm. He was insane, so who knows, but he didn't "snap." Like the Columbine killers, he planned carefully, and mass murderers have historically loved gun-free zones like post offices, office buildings, and schools.

Anyway, Cho, as horrible as he was, is rather the exception to the rule. Thirty-two murders, while unprecedented as a mass shooting in US history, is still a drop in the murder bucket, comparatively speaking, in a country of 300 million. Murder and crime rates are cultural phenomenon to a far greater degree than any single incident, as shown by the aforementioned historical murder rate differences between the US and the UK at a time when weapons were common in both countries, and varies widely, even by internal cultures, not only within the US, but also the UK, and all around the world.

The US isn't about to change the 2nd Amendment. Neither the Repubs, nor the Dems (although the Dems would like to) are willing to bring the matter up because it would cost them votes. The right to bear arms, despite the wishful thinking of some on the left, was clearly shown in the Federalist Papers, writings by Madison, Jefferson, the Militia Act of 1792 (?), and lately reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, to be an individual right. Not commonly understood in Europe, it was not only intended for personal self-protection, but as a restriction on the government itself, a fail-safe in case the government betrayed the people and needed to be overthrown. Abolishing the 2nd Amendment would be disastrous; if only criminals had guns, they could, and would, go crazy. 20% of all homicides in the US occur in 6% of the population -- New York, Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC, and all of those cities have a virtual prohibition on handguns.

I personally feel that crime has to do with personal responsibility, integrity, honor, a fair legal system, a decent standard set of ethics, a sense of shame -- and having the same firepower the criminals do sure helps prevent it!

Just my opinion, but political correctness, moral equivalence, and multiculturalism have ruined honest debate and the formerly strong cultural values in the Western world, making intractable divisions where, before, compromise was possible, cheapening life, encouraging corruption, and weakening the definitions of right and wrong.

The solution? The world needs an enema. :(

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

Politicaly sad

It is sad that this has become a political debate. One very sad and damaged individual created a great deal of sadness and damage. I know of at least two high school and collage aged people that spent a long night searching for face book up dates of friends and vague acquaintances from long before. Their fear and sadness was real, even though only a wounded cousin of a former classmate was is close as it actually came.

No amount of gun control laws could have stopped him with certainty; no amount of psychological out reach could have reached him with certainty. But maybe something sometime (perhaps long ago could have. I don't know.)

The reason the US has a right to bear arms has a lot more to do with eighteenth century Scottish history and with the fact that we were born of a revolution than with any twenty-first century reality. Now we have some people who think that only one clause of one amendment means anything in the whole Bill of Rights.

I live in a city with the toughest gun laws in the US and with one of the highest murder rates (of course one only need cross a bridge to be in one of the easiest place in the world to get a hand gun (the state where Cho got his.)) This incenses some right wing politicizations, as if an armed populous will dissuade drive by shooters and ambushers. Such people don't give others time to defend them selves! They aren't about to call some one out on Main St. and high noon. Others like Cho don't bloody care if they die at all; that is their whole point!

It used to be true that Seattle and Vancouver had very similar economies and populations (And weather, et c.)(The dot.com boom changed that.). At that time Seattle's murder rate was much higher than Vancouver's because when some fool became mad enough he could walk inside and get a gun in Seattle and could only get a bat or knife in Vancouver. The assault rates were almost identical. GUNS DO NOT SAVE LIVES.

I went to a university where one of these incidences happened about fifty years ago. There are still bullet scars on the tower where people tried to shot up at the snipper with dear rifles. No one knows how many of the deaths caused by Whittman were actually collateral and the police were distracted with trying to keep the 'heroes' away.

Living in a world like the illusionary Tombstones (The old west was not really like that.) would not be more peaceful and safer. And colt revolvers could not get off over thirty shots before the targets could find chairs to hide behind (Before you point it out, I know what a .45 can do to a chair, but the bullet would be partly spent at least).

Enough of the useless diatribe, which will convince no one. I'm sorry for inflicting it on others but wanted it said somewhere. The only hope, IMHO, and it is a slim, probably forlorn, one, is to expand compassion, spread gentleness, universalize sympathy. It's all 'knee-jerk', right (such thoughts can't be as well reasoned). But perhaps no more 'knee-jerk' than arm then the 'arm them all!' reaction.

This isn't the place for this at all. Sorry, Erin.

Hugs

Liberty is more than the freedom to be just like you.

Why Blogs

erin's picture

Actually, Jan, Doug, Karen, et al, this is the blogspace. It and the forums are here specifically so people can discuss things without attaching them to stories. And as long as things don't get personal, almost anything is allowed. I'd prefer a few less of the generic stabs at right and left, but those aren't personal comments; they're sort of political reflexes.

My own views on this subject are complex. People often think I'm a liberal and probably a Democrat but in actual fact, I'm a progressive-unionist Republican, a rare breed anymore. I believe in the right to bear arms and in the government's responsibility to protect citizens with sensible gun laws, both. This makes me a dangerous person in such a debate because no one is happy with me.

But the original thread here was why did this happen. And the why in my view is this is life; it's not just humanity because dogs, rats, chimps, horses, lions and birds go crazy in just the same way. In the nihilistic 70s saying, "Shit happens and then you die."

We live, we learn. Some of us get broken and do bad things and some us die for no fault of our own. Society tried to help Cho and Cho actually tried to get help a few times. The system is pretty good but there are failures. We can work to improve the system, make help easier to get, detect people broken in Cho's particular way earlier and do something effective for them, keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho and do all of this without making life more difficult, dangerous or less free for people who have done nothing wrong.

And we will fail at all of that and people will die again but we just keep trying because we are alive and that's what life does. Meanwhile, shit happens and we deal with it and if we're still alive, we go on living and trying to get things right.

Hugs to everyone I can reach,
Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

kind politics?

OK, Erin. I said this was the wrong place in part because I really want to keep my 'friendly, well lit' place friendly, but so far it has remained that. However, I also said it because of how this blog began. This was a tragedy, all loss of human life is the only tragedy. Perhaps it is of a kind that will always exist (I do believe, it always has.). I recoil at its use as fertile ground for political hay. I regret (and recoil) at my own impulse in going in that direction. So I won't again.

But I think this is beyond politics: This has shown how violence, hate, hurt can spread in ever greater ripples unchecked by tides of reason. Because i had two young friends hit by fear and grief, even though the event was so far as a cousin of forgotten old classmate, I was directly touch by this act, and my reaction (Though unrecognized) may have effected others. Is it too much to hope that kindness, love, compassion can have similarly wide effects, even if it is never as dramatic? Is it open for political debate, to encourage such behavior? Why do i feel that it seems to be?

give love, seek joy;
Hugs
Jan

Liberty is more than the freedom to be just like you.

Virginia Tech.

Before I even start, I wish to make it clear that I have not read the replys to Karen's Post. I wish to add my condolences to all involved. There are a lot of things wrong with this situation from the very start, and there are few real answers around. There ARE a lot of opinions around, and everyone is entitled to one. I have worked on an urban college campus with about 30,000 students and have done so for just close to 35 years. I can actually retire in a matter of days. Thats beside the point. In that 35 years, I have seen my fair share of happenings, including some hostage type situations, crazy people, angry people, and more. Again, that's beside the point. One point I wish to make during all this....is why did people let this happen? I know there are bad people out there and I know there are people ready to do this at a moments notice. It is all over the TV and other media. When news is slow, this topic is dug out to stir things up. The whole civilized world should be aware of it by now, and everyone in a public place should be aware of it. Not only a public place, but it happened to a home in Indianapolis not long ago. One man went in and killed 7 or 8 people. BIG UPROAR about that. It happened about 5 doors from where my niece lives. Again, beside the point. How could all those people sit and huddle like rabbits and wait for this jerk to come shoot them. I fully intend to take a lot of killing when my time comes, and whoever it is better shoot me a whole bunch, or be a lot better than I am. He's gonna earn me. If he does, he can have me. But I sure won't play by any rules if it does. This may sound harsh, and uncaring and full of bravado....that is not the intent. The whole idea of one man being able to control dozens goes all the way back to before Korea and the POW camps. Until people stand up for themselves, there are gonna be bad people out there that do this. When we make the cost to them to expensive, it may slow down or stop. Of course with more and more people in the world all the time, the chances of aberrant personalities coming to the fore is greater, since there are more of them around. I think I have said this badly and it may stir people up....that is not my intent....just a comment. There are no easy answers. How to prevent things of this nature, in an open society, without infringings on personal liberties is a real problem. Kind of like Homeland Security operations here in the States. And further back to the POW camps and internment of Japanse/Americans during WW2. I better stop. I hope it is not so simple as the sheep, the sheep dog, and the coyote.