Virginia Tech massacre

[EagerMind]

criticism != bashing.

If you don't mind me making a slight tweak: constructive criticism != bashing.

The way I see it, there are two key issues to this event:

1. Student committed a massacre -> why did he do it?
2. Student committed a massacre -> what made this worse than it could/should have been?

Answers to 1 might include (among others) "America has a problem with violence," and to #2 might be "he had access to a gun." I wouldn't have any problems with discussions like this, especially if backed by evidence and solutions.

I do find it a little irritating - not just in this thread, but also in our domestic media - that it's only #2 that's ever addressed, and even then, it's confined to the issue of him having a gun. This implies to me that a) the sole goal here is to get rid of guns (i.e. political hijacking), b) if we can keep the body count down when these things happen, then we're doing ok, and c) we're not really interested in addressing why he did it.

In this thread specifically, the following assertions have also been made, which really don't have anything to do with addressing the issue of gun control in the US in any realistic sense, and if not insulting, are generally at least baseless and/or stereotypical:

3. Americans are pathologically violent -> they need guns
4. Americans hold human life in low regard -> they need guns
5. Americans live in a state of perpetual fear -> they need guns
6. Americans are brainwashed and ignorant -> they needs guns
7. Americans have guns -> they deserve/should expect massacres to happen
8. Americans have guns -> they're uncivilized
9. Americans have guns -> their constitution is broken
10. Americans are crazy and f*ed up (actually, I'll submit to this, but I don't think we're at all unique in this aspect)

With the vast majority of comments being about #3-10, hopefully you can understand why it gets frustrating. You may not be intending to insult or culture-bash, which I certainly appreciate, but I don't think Darth and I (and others) are seeing phantoms either.

Anyway, I've typed and spent way too much time on this topic. I've said my peace. I'm definitely having a drink ....

[voh]

Of the ones you posted, I agree (some to a certain extent) with the following:

5. Americans live in a state of perpetual fear -> they need guns
7. Americans have guns -> they deserve/should expect massacres to happen
9. Americans have guns -> their constitution is broken

5: The media is all "FEAR THIS FEAR THAT" and I can say that with a straight face. The American media is amazingly dishonest and there's a real problem with how the news is brought and what the news is. It's prime time, it's money, whatever shocks wins. Milk it for what it's worth. News is entertainment. This is not a good thing, and sadly, a lot of Americans still believe that whatever's said on the news is true. Of course, as I said, you guys are getting more and more critical about both the news and the government, which is good. The news stations need to realize they're there to inform, not to incite, not to entertain, just to inform.

7: They do not deserve it, but like I said before, guns invite violence more often than they deter it. That is, of course, my not so humble opinion, so I'm not even going to try and state that as fact. I feel that they're more of a negative addition to a civilized country than positive. I've never had a need for a gun, and nobody I know has ever had need for a gun, and that is proof (for me) that guns are not necessary in a civilized country with a proportionate amount of crime. That they're necessary in the US means there's something wrong. Which brings me to...

9: The constitution is generally fine, other than the fact that the right to bear arms (sad, sad arm-less bears...  *sniff*) is outdated and no longer necessary in today's society. Okay, well, the way it is now it'd be stupid to throw away your gun, because the baddies would still have them. But if the government were to slowly but surely impose more limitations on guns, it might work out for the best.

15 fatal gunshot victims last year. That's 0.9% of the total population. In the US that would be just below 300 fatal gunshot victims. C'mon..

[evenwolf]

victor, I understand what you were saying about possible influences.  We are on the same side here.   But I find it shameful that the selection process for these movie poster photos included only asians, as if asians invented these poses.  Asian cinema can be particular violent and macabre,  but there are people out there who want to make this a racial thing.  Even a southern korean thing:  (Old Boy & Seung-Hui)   But Old Boy is not at fault.  No single piece of media is at fault.   (including Cho Yun Fat or Clint Eastwood)   Its our entire culture.   And I think you detract away from that when you pick and choose only asians... or hammers what have you.   Removing one piece of media from the whole culture solves nothing.

That's censorship.  And we don't need that as a result of this poor soul.

[vict0r]

Okay, this might not be what you are implying, but again I'm not actually saying that the movies even influenced him in any other way than the poses(if any). And I don't think anything should be censored, even if a murderer watched it/played it.

The main reason I thought in that direction were because of the poses and the fact that they are both South Korean (movie and Cho). Now, I don't think that they are South Korean has anything to do with it. It was just my brain drawing connections. When I think Korea, I think alot of things, Oldboy being one of them.

I would find it more likely that the reason he did this was because of R/L problems. Maybe family, class"mates" or anything else and I must admit that I feel sorry for Cho Seung-Hui! What he did was horrible. I feel extremely sorry for the families and the ones who are left behind, but in the mean time I feel sorry for anyone whose mind drives you to do something like this.

EDIT: Which is probably why I am so fascinated with him.

Double EDIT: Sent out late yesterday night.

The statement by Sun-Kyung Cho, sister of Seung-Hui Cho, on behalf of herself and her family:

On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy. We are heartbroken.

We grieve alongside the families, the Virginia Tech community, our State of Virginia, and the rest of the nation. And, the world.

Every day since April 16, my father, mother and I pray for students Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Brian Roy Bluhm, Ryan Christopher Clark, Austin Michelle Cloyd, Matthew Gregory Gwaltney, Caitlin Millar Hammaren, Jeremy Michael Herbstritt, Rachael Elizabeth Hill, Emily Jane Hilscher, Jarrett Lee Lane, Matthew Joseph La Porte, Henry J. Lee, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Lauren Ashley McCain, Daniel Patrick O'Neil, J. Ortiz-Ortiz, Minal Hiralal Panchal, Daniel Alejandro Perez, Erin Nicole Peterson, Michael Steven Pohle, Jr., Julia Kathleen Pryde, Mary Karen Read, Reema Joseph Samaha, Waleed Mohamed Shaalan, Leslie Geraldine Sherman, Maxine Shelly Turner, Nicole White, Instructor Christopher James Bishop, and Professors Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin P. Granata, Liviu Librescu and G.V. Loganathan.

We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.

Each of these people had so much love, talent and gifts to offer, and their lives were cut short by a horrible and senseless act.

We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless and lost. This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person.

We have always been a close, peaceful and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence.

He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare.

There is much justified anger and disbelief at what my brother did, and a lot of questions are left unanswered. Our family will continue to cooperate fully and do whatever we can to help authorities understand why these senseless acts happened. We have many unanswered questions as well.

Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy

[RickJ]

They do not deserve it, but like I said before, guns invite violence more often than they deter it. That is, of course, my not so humble opinion, so I'm not even going to try and state that as fact. I feel that they're more of a negative addition to a civilized country than positive. ...

So Voh, wg\hat you are saying is that you hold this opinion because it some how makes you feel good, regardless of the facts?

You just need yojgoogle "Great Britan Crime Rate" to see what happend since 1997 when guns were outlawed there.   According to this article  , dated July 23, 2001, the BBC reported that:

According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Britain's rate of assault, robbery, and burglary now exceed those in the United States.? Murder and rape are edging up very near the American rates, too.

BBC News reported "a dramatic rise in violent crime from 1998 to the present."? Relying on statistics from the British Office of Home Affairs, crime in England and Wales this year is at epidemic levels, 60% higher, per capita, than in the U.S.

...

n contrast, the U.S. has among the world's lowest "hot" burglary rates -- defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building -- at 13%.? Compare that rate with gun-free Great Britain's rate, which is now up to 59%.

It's logical.? An American study showed that the #1 explanation from would-be burglars not to enter an occupied building was:

    "I might get shot."

Criminals may be strolling down the road to Hell, but they're not crazy enough to hurry the trip.


And for anyone who would care to read here is another article datae 2000 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335.   

If you are wondering way the articles are so old, it's because it's old news.  But just to lay to rest the notion that perhaps things have gotten better here is a more recent article dated 2007.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Facts are inconvenient when they contradict one's world view and are best avoided, if one is to maintain one's feelings,  I suppose?

[Gregjazz]

I felt bad about posting the entire article here, but it's a good read. Here's the link and a few quotes:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

[jetxl]

We should all carry a can with gasoline and matches, that way we can always fight fire.

[evenwolf]

Victor,  you sympathize with a murderer under the pretense that he had it worse than you did.  You can assume this but most likely he had the same problems we all do, and he just didn't know how to handle them.

For instance, when I feel really angry I express that emotion into a drawing.   Or I confront the person I am angry with.     Yes, Cho Seung-Hui had problems, but to feel sympathy for him is rather disrespectful.   I cannot extend him the slightest courtesy of sympathy.

Courteous, civilian beings do not disrupt the lives of others over one's own suffering.   

[voh]

So Voh, what you are saying is that you hold this opinion because it some how makes you feel good, regardless of the facts?

No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I've got my opinion, and I share it. My opinion is based on facts between the US and the Netherlands. The UK has nothing to do with the way I feel, as I think it's going nutters all on its own.

Facts are inconvenient when they contradict one's world view and are best avoided, if one is to maintain one's feelings,  I suppose?

When facts are relevant to what I'm saying, I'll give them. If someone else comes with a response containing facts that are relevant to what I said, fine. But when someone comes along with facts about a country when I'm not even talking about comparing that country to the US, it's kind of ridiculous.

The situation in the UK is the product of a misjudged decision. "Turn in your legal guns!" isn't going to work, not in the UK, not in the US.

Let me quote myself, because obviously you're reading very selectively and actively ignoring what I'm saying.

Okay, well, the way it is now it'd be stupid to throw away your gun, because the baddies would still have them. But if the government were to slowly but surely impose more limitations on guns, it might work out for the best.

See? I said that doing it the way they did in the UK is, as far as I'm concerned, the bad way of doing it. I'm more for a many-year plan, eventually taking away the guns from both the public AND the petty criminals, over a long period of time so the public isn't stuck with a lack of defense to assholes who don't *have* to hand in their gun when the government says so.

What made you think I said otherwise?

[Helm]

So Americans who are gun activists (or I guess you're saying all Americans) are ignorant pawns brainwashed into an acquiescent state of fear and violence by some unnamed group. I'm having a hard time trying to determine whether or not I'm supposed to take this seriously.

Go write a love letter to your strawman.

It seems a little disingenuous to codify in law what you're allowed to do should the rule of law fail.

I don't see why. 'In the event of failure' is a very honest clause to put in a constitution. It's not the method of goverment that fails, it's he people that fail to enforce it properly.

[quote[I'm curious, how do you exercise this clause of your constitution? Does the government issue weapons to the population with instructions that they may only be used if dictatorship takes over?[/quote]

I'll tell you what happens. When the US-backed military extremists made a coup in greece, people fled to the mountains, supplied themselves, set up infrastructure and entered a guerilla war of atrittion. Any other questions?

Are there weapons depots available for civilians to access if the government is overthrown? As expressed â€" “you're not allowed to have weapons, but feel free to resist us should we decide to oppress you” â€" I suspect that this may not really mean anything at all.

I suspect you are historically ignorant.

Gun control certainly can be an issue if the people trying to fight for democracy don't have access to the weapons they need to oppose dictatorship.

When there's a need for weapons, there will be weapons. You can steal weapons, get them from other countries or what-have-you. You don't have to have them in your living room.

It seems to me that if you grew up in an environment where guns were readily available, handled responsibly, and your parents taught you how to use them out in your backyard, you might have a more permissive view of guns without the requirement of being ignorant, morally misaligned, or pathologically violent.

If I grew up around guns, were taught to use them in my own back yard by my parents, we better the hell have been a family of hunters. Otherwise I'm being taught a method of precise and clean murder, oh, if the need ever arises or something. That's a culture of violence.

In other parts of the world, where there's mandatory army service, every male undergoes training with weapons in the case there's a war. But the military doesn't try to dress it up. They teach you how to use lethal weapons in the case you have to kill someone. Not in the case you have to bully someone by putting a gun on the back of their head because you're deathly scared of them.

... is this civilization, democracy and mild tempered tolerance?

Sure, why not? I have to wonder which society is more civilized: society 1, where violent crime doesn't exist because weapons are outlawed so potential criminals can't get weapons, or society 2, where violent crime doesn't exist because everyone has weapons so potential criminals fear reprisal.

In both of the scenarios you present there's supposedly less violence because potential evildoers fear reprisal. In the first scenario, by the officials in the case one has an illegal weapon. In the second, against civilians because they might shoot you. Obviously, the first scenario is quite a bit more civilized. The second is law of the west.

Regardless, it seems a bit overkill to dismiss a society as uncivilized simply because you disagree with one aspect of its culture.

I think you need to check up on your strawman again. I never said anyone is uncivilized. I criticized an aspect of their culture. An aspect that threatens democracy and civilization, potentially. I wish people were more interested in understanding what I'm saying, asking for clarifications if they need them, instead of being all about giving me their opposing view.

So you (and many others) are indirectly attributing the idea of gun ownership to a culture of violence and general disregard for human life.

Sure.

That sounds like a straw man to me.

I am sorry, you might want to check your philosophical lexicon on that one. Because you're abusing the term. An opinion is never a strawman. A strawman is when you make of someone else's opinion, a weaker but similar one so you may dismiss it easily.

Actually, you've made this argument explicitly in your opening statement, along with claims of societal manipulation and programming, based on nothing other than your opinion

Sure. I am engaged in a social discussion, not a scientific analysis. Nor I, nor you, have the means to suggest more than half-informed, semi-intuitive positions on how geopolitics work. Your attempt to usurp a methodological high-ground here is upsetted by your inability to supply me with zillions of links to irrefutable data. So,

The implications of this are somewhat unsettling.

Perhaps you should go back to check on your strawmen. You really like arguing but you're not worth arguing with because you're too invovled in poking holes in the arguments of others as an end to itself instead of honest discussion. My need is not to argue needlessly here, though as you can see it's very easy to humble your reactionary reasoning. It is to exchange opinions and information. If you have an opinion, let's hear it.

Isn't that the whole point of going to the facts â€" to formulate one's own opinions by combining fact with one's own system of beliefs and morals?

The whole point, my eager eager friend, is to realize that data can be read in many ways, there's no irrefutable evidence, every piece of sociological data can be attributed to a plethora of causes and nobody is an expert in this discussion. Exactly because of this, it is pointless for me to state my sources (which are mainly greek newspapers) or try to find 'numbers' for you. This discussion is one mainly of ethics and not one of hard facts. Some facts (like the number of deaths in the us by handguns) are useful for some arguments, but I'm not rubbing them in anyone's face like they are god's truth on the subject.

And if you'd like to talk morality, no, no system of morality is based on any sort of fact. They're all equally invented, socratic organons that we've devised for a number of reasons, less making sense of reality and more enforcing opinion on reality.

Have a drink.

I don't understand where this requirement for everyone to be in agreement with “The One Correct Opinion” comes from.

That is because this statement is a strawman. I never said I am correct, nor that I want anyone to agree with my Opinion. I consider all statements to be subjective and epistemologically troubled. I value communication over agreement. If I wanted you to agree with me on something I'd never ask you your opinion. A silent agreement suits me fine.

My theories are just theories. Like your theories. They all fail amazingly at approaching a description of the infinite interfacing complexity that is reality. If you're arguing for truth, discuss with someone else.

So it seems to me we can either resign ourselves to repeatedly pounding on the table and yelling “No, you're wrong!” at each other â€" which I find is the normal course of events â€" or prepare ourselves to try and understand the other side's viewpoint, possibly bringing our own into question, and come to some constructive compromise or common ground. Might the latter method lead us to that goal of civilized, democratic, mild-tempered tolerance regardless of one's opinions?

I'm not being uncivilized, I think. Do you think I'm being uncivilized? I'm mild-tempered, surely. To endure this thread certainly makes me more zen by the minute.


Darth:

I would agree that the examples I pointed out in this thread weren't particularly "harsh".  But as I stated above, my point was simply that these "blanket" statements were made that weren't clarified.

then ask them for clarifications, don't ask them why they hate america.

[Darth Mandarb]

then ask them for clarifications

I did.

don't ask them why they hate america.

I didn't.


I would think that about anything, not only when it's a generalized bashing of the U.S., one would want to clarify their opinion/statement with the reason(s) why they have and/or are sharing that opinion/statement.

There are, of course, exceptions.  If somebody makes a thread about how delicious tomatoes are and somebody posts, "I don't like tomatoes" there's really no need for clarification there.

I know it's not realistic to expect everybody to clarify their statements and that "blanket" generalizations will continue to be made (hell, I'm sure I've done it a few times, we all have).

That does not, however, mean that nothing should be said/done about it when it occurs.

[vict0r]

Victor,  you sympathize with a murderer under the pretense that he had it worse than you did.     

No. I hardly sympathize with him. What the families might go through must be x times harder than what he had to go through.
The reason for me "sympathizing" with him is because of what you already pointed out! He didn't know how to deal with it. He never learnt how to deal with problems, and if this is what drove him mad I do feel sorry for him. I feel this about any person who lack that kind of social intelligence and just build up the anger inside. Sure, noone made him do this, but he could have felt that it was the only way to make the problems go away.

[passer-by]

You have to know that you would use your gun, or the person that threatens you will know you can't  and owning a gun will be kind of pointless. I hate the idea of having one at home, because I'm sure I'd shoot the wrong person or myself. Or I'd freeze and faint, most probably. This is why I don't own a gun.  I'm also afraid that  a burglar might never think that my furniture is worth an arrest so they'll never show up to take it. But my catching my boyfriend/husband in bed with someone else might make me take this gun and shoot them both. Or that my kids will find the gun and kill each other. Or that I feel so stressed at work that I'll blow my brains instead of having a hot bath. In any case, a handy firearm is a bad thing and the possibility to use it by mistake or while in anger is very possible. I'm not sure if I'd use a knife or something because I'd have to be strong, but guns don't require any extra effort.

Somebody said something about strict gun controls in Greece. I'm still laughing (Criti, Mani, vendetta...should I continue?)
Gun control on its own wouldn't solve the problem, because everybody can find everything in the black market. There's no law that could stop the gangs from getting a weapon.

[Helm]

Somebody said something about strict gun controls in Greece. I'm still laughing (Criti, Mani, vendetta...should I continue?)

Crete is Crete and Mani is Mani. Exceptions. But I do agree it's not just gun control on its own that does anything.


Darth, from all I've said on this thread, tell me what you want me to clarify and I'll gladly do it, then. Specific things.

[passer-by]

Crete is Crete and Mani is Mani. Exceptions. But I do agree it's not just gun control on its own that does anything.

Quite big exeptions, compared to the total population and surface, I think.
Anyway, my point was that laws can't beat tradition.

[Helm]

Well as I said before Crete added that as a term in entering Greece so they're not technically breaking any law. And Mani is Mani. They have that odd vendetta tradition, yes. But an exception it is.

I agree to your general point.

[Sam.]

In an extemely general way, laws ARE tradition.

Without going in to a lecture that i dont really remember, many early laws came from tradition, and as such are VERY dificult to change.

Owning a gun in america is a right. The right to protect yourself. Just like the right to an education or whatever, a change to this would be seen to be as serious (by many of the VOTING public) as closing schools.

in my opinion, the best thing america (in a general sense) can do, is help to educate people past using guns as a solution to problems. Its not an immdiate quick fix, but I think its the only workable solution that can work.

[Darth Mandarb]

Darth, from all I've said on this thread, tell me what you want me to clarify and I'll gladly do it, then. Specific things.

My stand on the "generalization without clarification" wasn't directed at you.  While I find your posting style to be, at times, unnecessarily rude and abusive you usually back up what you're saying.

[Nacho]

You may not be intending to insult or culture-bash, which I certainly appreciate, but I don't think Darth and I (and others) are seeing phantoms either.

Thanks... My deepest thanks. I thought I was going nuts. I really appreciate that.

[evenwolf]

Victor, you use the terminology "what drove him mad".   This a bit foul because mental illness isn't caused by other people, activity can be triggered perhaps, but illness is usually inherent in the person's physiological and chemical makeup.  Genetics.

Please research mental disorders, and mental illness in general.  My mother is manic depressive, she's practically always been that way but when I was born YES something was triggered that made it worse.    You won't understand anything more than the mental disorder that Cho Seung-Hui had, which was a type of schizophrenia.

These types of events happen time and time again by mental illnesses, and everyone makes a big shit about the killer and their sociological behaviors, but no focus is ever drawn on the ongoing fight with mental disorders in the world.