Virginia Tech

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have often thought that was the soulution to many groups of social offenders, Matt! :wink:

[Marcus Cassius LegioXIV]

We should go with what Chris rock said: Make each bullet cost $10,000, that will make you think how you want to use it!

[Felix Canus]

Felix

Problem with what he ranted about is that 95% of the kids he went to school with are from the same place he is from, two of his victims went to the same high school he did. Americans really don't understand the concept of rich and poor, he was not poor and most of the student body is not rich they are middle class and most parents take out loans and mortgages to send their kids to school. Cho was delusional; he felt a gap that did not exist. He had more money than I did when I went to school; I couldn't buy CDs much less guns back then.

That was part of the point I was trying (poorly) to make. I do not believe it has anything to do with actual material wealth, but has more to do with the personalities that wealth brings. Less than an hour ago, I witnessed a young girl (18-20) arguing with a police office that she should be allowed to park her Jaguar in a non-parking area because there was shade there and shade is good for her car. It had nothing to do with the law, but everything to do with her driving a Jaguar. That is a perfect example of the lack of civil sense that growing up wealthy often causes.

Yes, Cho was delusion, no doubt. But delusions must have something to feed on, to take root in. In the seriously delusional, they manufacture their own sources, but these people are fairly easy to spot. The ones like Cho are better at hiding in plain sight, especially in a society that avoids looking an anyone but themselves.

But I must take exception to the idea that Americans don't know the difference between rich and poor. It may appear that way, but I can assure you that the poor are very well aware of the differences. It's just very easy to ignore the poor and their views. That is why the peasantry rarely makes it into the history books with any detail.

[Robert Vermaat]

Valerius

Sure I was picked on by people in school; I was a fat punk rocker, I just found them irrelevant who cares what those people think.

My bad. I was looking at that sentence only. I see what you mean.

That was part of the point I was trying (poorly) to make. I do not believe it has anything to do with actual material wealth, but has more to do with the personalities that wealth brings. Less than an hour ago, I witnessed a young girl (18-20) arguing with a police office that she should be allowed to park her Jaguar in a non-parking area because there was shade there and shade is good for her car. It had nothing to do with the law, but everything to do with her driving a Jaguar. That is a perfect example of the lack of civil sense that growing up wealthy often causes.

Don't blame the car - the Jag isn't to blame!

But I think you're right. I saw a show on TV where very rich kids went out hiking and had to to stuff for themselves - they had a very bad attitude towards other people, work, and following any rule that inhibited their 'personal freedom'. Totally spoilt brats.
Another show had rich and poor kids working together - at first the rich kids thought the others were their servants! hock: Only after much interaction did some 'normal persons'shiny through. They actually learned something about normal, unprivilidged life..

Then again, disregard for the law is also very common among people who make average pay. Unfortunately, where I live, many people think it's normal to argue with police officers about just anything: parking speeding, trespassing, etc.. This is known to lead to violence when friends and neighbours came to 'aid' the persons who have just been issued warrants, etc. Sometimes, even medical personel is attacked because people think they don't get the aid they 'deserve'.

I can't understand this - why do these people behave in that way, when they can know from the start that it's counterproductive behaviour that won't get them anywhere? hock:

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Disrespect knows no financial boundries.

[M. Demetrius]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041807B

Don't blame the car - the Jag isn't to blame!

Right. The car is just a machine. It can be used for good or evil, transportation or running down a group of pedestrians. So don't blame the gun, either. Same reason.

It was a horrible morning, and left a scar that will not go away for quite some time, if ever, in the lives of people surviving and family members. Unfortunately (in a way), in the US, we have rules that say the murderer's civil rights, rights to privacy, and right to do as he pleases up to the very instant of pulling the trigger the first time override the obvious need to take action against his historic demonstration of violence, and his clearly apparent choices to do harm to other people. While this was the first time he murdered anyone, as far as anyone knows, it was not the first time he acted violently toward other people. In other words, nowadays, we are required by law to look the other way until it gets really bad. Then we blame ourselves for having "caused him to be that way."

I don't see it like that, but the ones in authority at all levels certainly seem to. A damaged piece of fruit should quickly be separated from the rest in the bag, so it doesn't cause more to be ruined.

How to monitor that? Can't. No action is allowed when it comes to people in the US these days. So we will have more events like this, mark my words.

[James B.]

Paul, if half the people in the US had as much responsibility and your attitude towards firearms, I don't think the firearm issue would be much of one at all.

Problem is you have very unstable "kids" with access to the same weaponry that we adults have...or people who are responsible have. That's a recipe for disaster. I always liked the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The unfortunate part of it is that guns are IMO too easy to acquire in the US. So when you do have a whack job like this piece of crap, he is able to get his hands on something that is capable of killing, and killing in high numbers.

But the whack jocks like Cho come along only every now and again. The real problem here is gangs and the urban environment they are in. Most members of gangs range from 16-24 making most not old enough to buy a pistol. How then do they get them? Well sadly enough members of their family often purchase the guns legally and sell it to the underage gang members or those with criminal records that exclude them from having guns. What compounds the issue is we do not criminally punish those who do the buying (shill buying) often because the penalties are minor when compared to the murder case the cops have to deal with. Basicly it is not loose gun laws it is lack of enforcment of breaking the law.

The flip side to the coin is the common murders of gang members don’t affect the middle class. I live 2 miles from the bridge to DC in Alexandria; our murder rate was high last year at 3 people, yes I said 3 people and they were killed together at once over drugs. DC a mere 2 miles away had something like 230 murders last year in the bad parts of town. This is why when 32 students die people take action, it is not common for middle class people to be effected by gun violence.

[Felix Canus]

Several states have considered a law that, if your weapon is used in commission of a crime, you are liable as an accessory to the crime unless you have previously reported the weapon as stolen. But I don't know if any have passed the bills into law yet.

[john m roberts]

Many teacher friends at highschool and college level have been discussing this incident on boards I belong to. They all agree on several things: for one, all have had disturbing students like Cho. All agree that there is very little they can do about such students, other than recommend help. A few have requested that these students be removed from their classes, but even that is a tricky step, because the students or their parents can, and will, sue. Schools are terrified of lawsuits. To compound the matter if, like Cho, the student is non-Caucasian, he will certainly charge the teacher and the school with racism, which is death to an academic career. Amid all the finger-pointing and charging that "something should have been done before this could happen," nobody seems to be saying what could have been done. The days are past when guys in white coats with nets and straitjackets could be called in to haul off a deranged individual.

[Robert Vermaat]

OK, if you can't get at the individual, it's time to look at gun sales. I understand that it's nigh impossible to ban guns (and that might not even get the intended result), so how about selling guns?

Make it impossible for kids to buy guns. Make sales difficult - no more gun sales in superstores, specialist shops only, which are obliged to register every sale. Make it obligatory to register every customer (drivers licence, passport, fingerprints even better), and link every gun to the owner.

How about making it obligatory to belong to a gun club before owning a gun is even allowed? Have shops and clubs pass all the details to the local government (or the FBI).

How about a total ban on automatic weapons for private citizens? I simply can't imagine such weapons are 'neccesary' for safety reasons - they're just for fun and crime.

I realise that won't stop killings with guns, but it will help against lunies who run into schools with loads of weapons.

[James B.]

Hi Valerius

I think you do not understand American gun laws; here are some facts.

In that case of VT; Cho bought his gun from a gun shop, he passed a background check, and you have to be 21 years of age to buy a hand gun; he is 23.

Registration does nothing in reality; we can trace back gun sales without it. It only creates a list of who owns guns legally which the courts have ruled violates Americans 2nd amendment rights. Some states do it but have found no real benefit to it.

Automatic weapons require an expensive federal permit and registration. Automatic gun are almost never used in a crime in America because they are not cheap. We have also taken steps to make guns far more tamper proof so moron gang bangers cannot convert guns to automatic like back in the 80s.

So called assault weapons, military stalks, high capacity ammo clips (over 10 rounds), bayonet attachments (damn bayoneting are out of control ), and bi pods are used in .0001% of American crimes. Cheap handguns are the most commonly used weapon in a crime, more than 98% of the time. Rifles are hardly ever used, cannot carry one in a jacket. Last time a ban of cheap guns was proposed the ACLU (civil liberties and liberal organization) not the NRA said they would fight it making the claim it punished poor people.


Hope these facts help.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

As a former law enforcement officer, I want to point out a few things. All these observations are an opinion formed on situations I actually worked with, or have first hand knowledge of. This is not meant to offend anyone or to spark any debate. It is based of on the job things I heard, or experienced. I am somewhat reluctant to post this, but sometimes the different perspective needs to be offered.

First, most Campus and School Police work for the School Administration, not any official government entity. These administrations have little or no expertise in police work and regularly seem to pressure their police to downplay any incidents. I heard of an officer, as I recall, who was disciplined (unofficially) for making arrests of non-students coming on campus to deal drugs, and some individuals responsible for some thefts, and sexual assaults. The problem, I heard, was that the crime statistics, which are based on arrests, went up and the school got some bad publicity. Exit the officer, for whatever official reason. Lesson learned.

I worked for the School Police for a short period and hated it. The attitude that filtered down unofficially, from the top seemed to me to be "There are no guns, don't confiscate any. There are no gangs. Don't report any gang activity. There are no drugs, don't find any. Our schools are so well run there are no problems." I found a ex-student outside a basketball game with a military style handgun, almost 100 rounds of ammunition, two knives, two clubs, and false identification as a security officer. I had to fight to get the gun away from him. As a School police officer, I was unarmed. The only thing I got back from the Police Administration was not to use the radio to call for backup again, because the media might get a hold of it. That year, I think 23 handguns were confiscated, of which only 14 were officially reported due to "clerical error". One middle school was famous for open sales of guns between students. The guns were mostly stolen and obtained from street gangs who knew it is almost impossible to prosecute a juvenile for anything. Juveniles, preferably under 14, are recruited for drug sales and as transporters for that reason. What happens if you search a female under 14 for drugs or guns? Because of the liability, you don't. Also, they know you won't do a search. Have a female officer do it? Good luck in finding one, when most of the time there are only two of us on duty at any time. Anyone under 14 cannot, by law here, be questioned without parental consent. It is also illegal to release the names, or any information on juvenile offenders except in some instances, so a lot of crimes never even make the news.

The murder and shooting victims for this month in my area has exceeded 22 individuals, some as young as 12. In almost every instance it was drug and gang related. The problem with guns comes back to drugs and gangs. Almost every gun I have ever confiscated in my duty years, was stolen, or in the hands of someone barred by law from owing or having possession of one to begin with, such as a minor, usually a gang member, or a convicted felon. Many of the illegal guns here, a border state, come from Mexico, where ironically, gun ownership is highly regulated. This does not stop a horrific murder rate far worse than in the US.

Finally, the issue that comes up all the time is law suits. When I started as a cop, the saying was "Do your job". Then it was "If your not being sued, your not doing your job." And then "Do your job, but don't get sued." and now, "Don't get sued". Often you have a choice between possible being sued for Negligence or Violation of Civil Rights. Negligence is almost always civil and covered by department insurance. Civil Rights issues can go criminal depending on the court and judge. Negligence is harder to prove. As the saying went: "The choice is what to you want to be sued for the most?" Most cops I worked with wanted to the right thing. That's why we got into the business. But after a few years on the street, you know politics and money run the system.

If this sound cynical, I am sorry. I did not have this attitude when I became a cop. I loved the profession, but you see a lot fast. Ask your local cops, off the record, what they think. Some areas do not have problems as endemic as where I worked. And there are a lot of good people out there who will do what needs to be done when it has to be. And they did. One sick person caused VT. Many, many, more came to the rescue of those in need at sometimes fatal risk.

Thanks,
Ralph Izard

[Praefectusclassis]

One sick person caused VT. Many, many, more came to the rescue of those in need at sometimes fatal risk.

Cynical you may be Ralph, but your last sentence shows there's hope yet for humanity!

[Narukami]

A tragic incident like this always invokes calls for tighter gun control, with several countries cited as examples of where gun control works.

Recalling Noel Perrin's excellent book "Giving Up The Gun: Japan's Reversion To The Sword 1543-1879" (c1979 ISBN: 0-87923-278-1) one naturally thinks of Japan as an example of a country where crime is low and gun control tight. Indeed, at first glance the numbers are quite impressive, and yet nothing, particularly in history, is ever simple or black & white.

While it is true that guns in Japan are tightly controlled and actual ownership is in fact on the decline, there are a host of cultural and historic reasons for this apart from simple gun laws. The Japanese example, commendable though it may be in many aspects is, I fear, not one that can be duplicated here in the United States nor perhaps anywhere else in the world.

This has as much to do with Japan's Samurai past as it does with more recent history. (Then again, the incident at Virginia Tech is causing the Japanese to consider tightening their gun controls yet again.)

I came upon a most fascinating article about crime, gun control and police power in Japan. The article was first published back in 1993 but is still quite relevant. It is a conscience yet thorough examination of this issue and the historic precedents that make Japan unique. Those of our members who have studied Japanese history (either formally or for their own edification) should find this article of particular interest. I think the rest of our members might find it illuminating with regards to current events and questions of where we go from here.

www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/64kjgc.pdf

Narukami

[RUBICON]

We have a total gun ban here in Australia as a result of our own 'nutcase' who went on a shooting in Hobart a few years ago.

The ban removed guns from the general public, with the exception of those mainly landowners, who could retain their weapons if proven they required them ie mainly for shooting feral animals on their farms.

Yet we still here of the new era of gang shootings, drive bys, bikie gun battles and armed holdups.

Unfortunately, someone somewhere will sell you a gun but it is comforting in teh fact that it is quite difficult to buy with the removal of public gun shops. We havent (fingers crossed) experienced a shooting here like we did went M. Bryant killed all those innocent tourists in Hobart and I hope I never have to hear the chilling screams of two young twins shot captured on video again.....

healthy debate can only draw attention to the effect of guns...automatic or not, a gun in the wrong hands is simply dangerous whether intentional, mental or simple accidental incidents....the effects to those involved is always tragic.

I agree it is not the gun, as we are discussing quite strongly the effect of performance cars in the hands of young, inexperienced hands...having or creating some sort of difficult purchasing policy may just make it difficult enough to ward off and maybe save one if not many lives.