PeterDavid.net

As I did with the Amish school shootings that happened around my area, my first reaction was, "Didn't anyone, SOMEONE, know what was going on inside this kid to try and reach him??"

Now it's coming out that, in this case, many did, and tried- but he was unwilling to connect.

SO is there any hope for these kids who feel so isolated? Do you feel that, in addition to the possible abuse- which I tend to believe happened as well- that society as whole becoming less and less of a community bares any fault too?? How do we change that? Can it be changed??

Just some things I've been thinking about...

It so happens I was spinning my Harry Chapin box set Story Of A Life last week in the days prior to this incident and one of my favorite songs on that set has always been "Sniper" for the story, scope, and the varying viewpoints from which it is told, including the sniper himself, acquaintances, and "news reports." The lyrics alone don't do the 10-minute song justice, imo.

I'm not saying it's the same thing, of course (it's an old song obviously), but there are certain eerie resonances, I think.

Yeah, imagine way back in the late seventies if the publishers had tagged THIS persons novel and considered him a bit 'off his nut' and hauled him in for questioning....

title? THE LONG WALK
plot? a group of young men meet annually (yes, ANNUALLY) and walk a certain distance. They MUST keep to a certain pace and they MUST at all costs keep walking. If they stop or lag behind a group of military sharpshooters will take them out one by one. Oh its not quite thAT BARBARIC....they get three warnings before they get shot dead.

Pretty grim eh?

Well for those of you who arent aware---
THE LONG WALK is a very real book.
The author?Stephen King under the name
Richard Bachman

From what they've excperted from the texts of the Virginia shooters writings, those seem somewhat tame compared to the Long Walk. And yet, King has not turned out to be a crazed man.

And yet Peter is correct that many student's writings will be scrutinized now because of this.

Hmm, thought I knew how to do links, but obviously not, so here are the links as I intended them in my post above...

Harry Chapin's "Story Of A Life" box set:
http://www.rhino.com/store/ProductDetail.lasso?Number=75875

"Sniper" lyric:
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Sniper-lyrics-Harry-Chapin/43ED51ADE719915748256CAA002CD045

I thought too, "Now how disturbing can his writing possibly be when the likes of Saw3 is out there already?"- but I suppose it was his behavior that sealed it for them ...

1, 3 and 4 seem likely, yes. (1) will and in my mind should go through, since "armed murderer walking around campus" strikes me as something a college might want to react to. (4) will, of course, make me want to throw up.

2 seems a bit of a stretch. Well, yes, someone may TRY and sue the shooter's parents, but I can't imagine such a case getting past the initial filing.

(5) happens to an extent already. My parents are both high school teachers and mechanisms for that sort of thing are in place, although they (like Tech) send students who submit "worrying" material to a psychiatric professional. Frankly, suspending/expelling a student in a situation like that is actually counterproductive, since engagement is what is required.

Frequent reader, first time poster here.

Zeek: That is exactly what I'm hoping folks remember... that disturbing behavior is what's worth taking seriously.

A friend of mine -- a pleasant, socially well-adjusted college guy who was in marching band and partied possibly too hard with his friends -- had to go through psych eval for a story he wrote for a creative writing class, wherein a gunman hunted from inside an animatronic attraction at Disneyland. It was more black humor and social commentary than horror, but his professor over-reacted... and this was in the pre-Columbine years, even.

Fiction isn't real life anymore than video games are. (Has anyone blamed GTA for this shooting spree yet, I wonder?) As Peter predicted, though, I think we'll be seeing precious little distinction being made between what people write and how they act. Genre writing's uphill battle to be taken seriously in college writing courses just got a whole lot worse.

Zeek, it's not that people tried and the student was unwilling to connect - this guy was hauled away for observation at one point - but it is a total, total breakdown of the mental health system in this country. If you think we have one, we don't. This guy was observed and let go. I know of one person who, after one suicide attempt, tried two methods the second time, and was still sent home that evening under her own authority - not even a 72 hour hold. When my own foster son had a panic attack and hyperventilated himself into a seizure, his doctor refused to treat him because it was a psychiatric issue, and though we searched for TWELVE months, no psychiatrist would treat him because he had state aid insurance - unless we wanted to wait in the welfare line, and then they could see him in 3 months (forget about crisis need). In CT several years ago, a mental patient on a day pass knifed a 9 year old girl to death at a street fair. Even John Hinckley is allowed home overnight without supervision. You can be the most frightening, violent person on record, but when your insurance says you've reached your limit, out the door you go. Medicine is an industry, and the days about caring and actual treatment are long gone. I won't discuss patient dumping (LA is famous for that). You can talk about weapon violence and loopholes all you want, but until we're willing to make psych evaluations easier to come by, and make a commitment to keep the dangerous, demented, and predatorious locked up (besides Manson, who seems to be the only person who can be legally locked up for insanity), this will continue to happen.

Peter, you forgot a couple of items of what will happen over the next month.

6)Politicians of every stripe will try to use this for (campaign purposes, whether they're running for something now or later.

7)Mass Media will be Pilloried, Movies, Tv, Video games, comics, music, all will be mentioned as "enablers" even if the young man in question did not partake from such media.

Charles F. Waldo

I can easily see any of Peter's 5 items happening, but it's the fifth one that I find the most disturbing. When I write my stuff, be it my comics, my novels, or my screenplay, some pretty nasty stuff happens in the stories. I've been writing most of it since high school. My teachers read some of it, and praised me for what I came up with. It's hard to write military adventure without violence and really nasty villains. Now, if I showed them some of it today, would I be labeled as creative or as a potential gunman? Heck, my five year old comes up with some violent stuff with his action figures or when he role plays on the playground. Is he going to be labeled? What we all have to try to avoid is the overcompensation because of this. I'll be the first one to say in a situation that Story X might be a sign of something, but unless Supporting Factor Y and Behavior Z is also present, maybe it's like Freud's cigar. But, if the reports I've heard are right, and this guy in Virginia was in and out of mental programs, why was he allowed to buy weapons?

One last thing. Students at VT have said they tried to reach out to this guy. Others said that if something were to happen, they could see Cho being involved. Is there anything that they could've done, legally, to have this guy investigated or watched or whatever? One of my novels that I'm working on has a rich kid who has killed one girl and is trying to kill another because his parents always fixed everything and made all his bad deeds disappear. Is this a case like that?

And of course the commentators on television who will use this to political advantage. Olbermann's already shown his ignorance, claiming that the "clip" used was previously illegal until "Congress and President Bush" let the renewal of the ban lapse. (The ban was on manufacture of the magazines, not the sale or ownership.)

I expected Rosie O to draw a comparison to how this kind of slaughter happens daily in Iraq, but I missed the mark on that one -- she compared it to Katrina instead.

But the real scumsuckers are the people mentioned in this Wired article, who immediately registered web domains named after the tragedy, then turned them around on eBay while the blood was still slick in the dorms. :{

Kath's remembrance of Jamie on her blog was just lovely. I haven't gone over to his site yet, I think it'd be too painful. Those of us who've been touched a bit too much by death so far this year need to put emotional shields around ourselves sometimes.

Sherry M.
Fiction isn't real life anymore than video games are. (Has anyone blamed GTA for this shooting spree yet, I wonder?)

Within hours of the shooting, Jack Thompson (he of the "GTA is responsible for my aunt's gout!" mentality) was on FOX (no surprise there) blaming videogames.

"SO is there any hope for these kids who feel so isolated? Do you feel that, in addition to the possible abuse- which I tend to believe happened as well- that society as whole becoming less and less of a community bares any fault too?? How do we change that? Can it be changed??"

I think many people have nostalgia for a past that never really existed. Every decade, every age, spawned it's own horrors. It's also worth noting that integration into a community isn't by itself a positive thing. As many horrible things have been done by communities as by lone crazies.

Call me pessimistic, but sometimes I think that some tragedies would have happened no matter what. The more I read about this guy, the more I think helping him would have been a very difficult task.

His writings make it obvious that this guy was abused by a parent or another older person. Is there anything that can be done to stop something like this from happening? Short of subjeting all kids to periodic physical examinations, it's very hard to know what happens behind closed doors inside people's homes.

Yes, I feel for the families of this tragedy, their feelings of great outrage and loss. But I think it important to resist the first impulse, which is to level blame at someone - anyone - who may have stopped this, but didn't. I don't think that happened here. Sometimes, tragic though it is, there is nothing that can be done that wasn't done. Yet, what is it going to take for our kids to be safe? Do we run our nation's colleges like a prison and suspect every student as a potential shooter? Frisk down every traveller at our airports, right down to haveing them remove their shoes? Tap every cell phone conversation in case someone with emotional issues is planning a rampage? At what point do we sacrifice personal liberty for the protection of all? Where do we draw that line? I am in no way advocating this maniac's right to murder. Where is our pain assuaged enough, and where do we take a stand
before someone else get hurt? After all our outrage at what happened is abated, what we must do to prevent it again. I fear we may be on the road to cutting off the nose to spite our face.

I agree with a lot of the prior posts -- while people may TRY #2 on Peter's list, I hope they get laughed out of court.

And since someone mentioned Harry Chapin's "Sniper" (which I agree is very powerful, kinda like most of Chapin's stuff), I've been hearing Peter Gabriel's "Family Snapshot" in my head for the last day and a half or so. Anyone else getting echoes of that one? (The POV is slightly different, but certainly similar enough to be rather uncomfortable.)

TWL

I see it like this...

Imagine a society in which guns are forbidden. Nobody is allowed to own a gun.

Then, imagine a society in which the ownership of guns is mandatory. Everybody over a certain age is issued a handgun. EVERYBODY.

Which society will have more murders? Which society will have more accidental deaths? I think reasonable people would recognize that the first society would be safer, despite the fact that EVERYBODY could be armed in the second society.

If guns make everybody safer, then give everybody guns. If they don't, then take them away.

When I heard he wrote violent plays, I wondered if anyone was going to call the police about you and all the violence you write about in Spider-Man.

My other fear is that the more attn this kind of thing gets, the more it seems to be all the rage.

Suicide by cop.

I.E. "I'm hurting, i'm ending my horrible existance, and, because I'm pissed, I'm taking out as many as I can with me," knowing full well that if they can't end their lives by their own hand- the cop will!

As if to prove my fears- just days after this tragedy, we hear about more bomb threats being called into schools across the country- including V-Tech!!

Sometimes people are just fucked in the head. You can try all you want to fix them or ramble for years about what caused it, but it's the sad truth - sometimes there is no fixing someone. Sometimes there is no preventing a violent act.

Dear Kurt,

Your posting has got to be one of the most ignorant idiotic statements that I've ever read outside of Mother Jones magazine. You have no idea what you're talking about. This being the case, I thank Mr. David for allowing both of us to express our opinions.
With regards to all who find discussion during tragedy within a certain thread,I.E.-(HITTING HOME)and statements there, I'll say this. I've never heard of Michael Bishop or his son Christopher. If Mr. Bishop was one of the ones murdered, I hope he went down trying to tear that bastard's head off.

Robert Preston

"Imagine a society in which guns are forbidden. Nobody is allowed to own a gun."

The problem here is that you're dealing with extreme and theoretical situations. Many gun-ownership advocates would say that the government will always do a poor job of making sure illegal guns don't end up in the hands of muggers, while taking away the guns of law-abiding people who only want to protect their homes. 'Nobody is allowed to own a gun' is a fine sentiment, but will the government be able to make sure this is for real?

Also, many people would wonder if the government itself would still be allowed to have guns in your hypothetical society and whether it's a good thing that an armed government lords over totally unarmed citizens.

Please, note that I'm not saying I would necessarily make those arguments myself. I'm really on the fence on this gun thing. I am only saying that until we discover a way to make every gun on the planet magically disappear and make sure they'll never come back, there will be arguments made against 'no one is allowed to own guns' utopias.

Your posting has got to be one of the most ignorant idiotic statements that I've ever read outside of Mother Jones magazine. You have no idea what you're talking about. This being the case, I thank Mr. David for allowing both of us to express our opinions.

So, you feel compelled to top him, eh?

*sigh*

Your posting has got to be one of the most ignorant idiotic statements that I've ever read

This from the person who attempted to turn the condolences thread into a charnel house.

In the words of Wallace and Gromit (and it helps if you think of this as being said in an English middle-class housewife voice):

"Stop it! Stop it, Preston!"

TWL
not suffering cyberdogs gladly

I agree with PAD about his list, well, 2 and 3 are already playing out. The rest will follow, I'm sure.

I don't believe we'll ever have a gun-free society and I don't think it is practical in a real world context. Incidentally, Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates and they have a law which requires every able-bodied man to own and maintain a fully automatic weapon as all men are considered part of their national militia. So, while guns make mass killings easier than say, a knife, I think there are larger societal issues that cause incidents like this.

From what I've read, the shooter had a lot of behavioral issues besides his violent writings that raised some red flags, but such warning signs always look clearer in hindsight.

What Den said.

Then, imagine a society in which the ownership of guns is mandatory. Everybody over a certain age is issued a handgun. EVERYBODY.

No need to imagine, Kurt. That society has a name. It's called "Todd McFarlane"... er... I mean... "Switzerland".

You might be surprised at their violent crime statistics.

Dear Mr. Tang, and Mr. Lynch,

I do not feel compelled to "top" anyone. Least of all Kurt or you, but statements like some posted here should go unchallenged. If that upsets anyone, that's their problem.
Rarely is my intention to offend anyone. If the "HITTING HOME" thread was intended as a memorial of sorts, then why was "DEN" given a pass when allowed to make his remarks? Probably because a lot of those who routinely read and post here agree with him. That's perfectly acceptable as long as the forum is open, but I have read some very hateful things posted on this site, and the posters are rarely taken to task for them. What I wrote doesn't even come close. The crimes at VT were the direct result of one sick individual, but everyone should learn something from it. Especially about themselves. In most instances, people can choose to not be a victim.
I do not live in a glass house. Throw all the stones you want.

All the best,

Robert Preston

Robert - so, you're saying that it's idiotic to believe a gun-free society would have fewer murders and accidental deaths than a society in which every adult can defend themselves with guns?

The only "statement" I made was that "reasonable people would recognize that the first society would be safer, despite the fact that EVERYBODY could be armed in the second society."

Good to know where you stand on this.

Rene - It's not problematic that I'm dealing with extreme, theoretical situations... that's how to find out if an idea works. If an idea works, it will also work in its extreme. If it doesn't work in the extreme, then it doesn't work.

Looking at a society in which it is much more difficult to obtain guns - Britain, for example, and even Canada - we have real examples of what can happen if gun control is applied to a greater level. Since we can agree that fewer guns equals fewer murders and deaths, then that should be enough, from my perspective.

And, also, to expand upon my idea ... the military gets to keep their guns. The police, only in extreme circumstances. Hey, it works elsewhere in the world, it can work here as well.

R.J. - in Switzerland, people aren't typically permitted to carry weapons in public. In my hypothetical, they are.

This is what I wrote in an email to myself just yesterday morning (I do that while I'm at work, as a sort of diary of the day.)

I'm just not looking forward to the hyper-analysis that the news media is going to be putting into this. The details are going to be gone over, the survivors interviewed about how they feel, the biography of the killer unearthed and in the end what will it change? People are
dead. Knowing The Big Why won't bring them back. The small why is simple--because they were shot by an asshole with a gun.

And I've been spot-on so far . . .

Mr. Preston,

If had avoided using the "most ignorant idiotic" part and also avoided sounding like a priest doing a sermon about someone else's opinion, there'll no reason for others answer as they did.

This whole guns / no guns issue is something that will go on and on... The fact is that Peter resumed pretty well what's going to happen next of this tragedy. I'm really sorry about all those people who died and I wish there was a more palpable solution for such thing doesn't happen again.

But, then again, what do I know?

-Maurício

Since I just read both threads pertaining to this story I thought I'd chime in.
Robert: You wrote "If the "HITTING HOME" thread was intended as a memorial of sorts, then why was "DEN" given a pass when allowed to make his remarks?"
While I agree that on a memorial/sympathies thread there should have been nothing but sympathy statements, rereading I see that he began his post "As for the kneejerk reaction" and ONLY criticized the
ignorant statements written by Debbie Schlussel. NO WHERE on his post was any critical remarks made about anyone involved in this tragedy.

You though wrote "As to the attack at VT, while my heart and prayers go out to all the families, the wounded, and all but one of the dead, I have to wonder how many of the people were killed trying to fight back. That is important." Is it? How so? That there were no Rambo's or Die Hard's among the students and the faculty? How many times sir have YOU been attacked? How many times has your life been threatened? Especially in a small room or locked campus?? How dare you attack these men and women who's lives were so wrongly taken away! They weren't trained soldiers. They weren't trained policemen. They were students and teachers.
And perhaps most importantly you weren't there. To state "I have to wonder how many of the people were killed trying to fight back. That is important.", - what were you implying sir?
Really, (to steal a quote) Have you no sense of decency?

I my guess as to the reason that Switzerland has such a low murder rate is that military training and service is mandatory. Discipline, a sense of duty as a citizen, and a healthy respect for the power of their weapon probably helps discourage most citizens from using their weapons for homicide.

Dear Kurt,

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your hypothetical about making people feel safe has nothing to do with reality. Any reasonable, law-abiding person that wants to be armed should be allowed to arm themselves. With NO INTERFERENCE from the State. Period. Unfortunately, the polypragmatoi (busybodies)around the world, such as yourself, consider my business to be theirs. If guns scare you, don't learn how to use them. That's your choice. Don't try to limit my choices and I won't try to limit yours. Fair enough?

All the best,

Robert Preston

I didn't want to say anything but...

The situation right now does not favors discussions about the legal right of carrying guns or whatever is called. The whole point of this post is to say that people that advocates both sides will use something horrific as this situation to defend their point of view, when, instead they, as we, mourn the loss of so many lives. Let the political disscussion for a more adequated hour.

-Maurício

If anyone was offended by my comment about Debbie Schlussel, I apologize. I would, however, like to point out that I was not the first person in that thread to talk about people exploiting the issue for their pet issues. Several people were already talking about the Phelps family before I started posting, for example. But, while everyone there was trying to be respectful to each other because of the seriousness of the issue, Robert Preston decided to be disrespectful to both the victims and to me personally.

And, as I said before, I have no idea why it's important to know how many of the students fought back before they were shot. This was not a video game or a Rambo movies. It was not an opportunity for people who were not there to live out some kind of macho fantasy. It was real people who were facing an ambush from an armed assailant.

then why was "DEN" given a pass when allowed to make his remarks? Probably because a lot of those who routinely read and post here agree with him

This is the first and only time I will address this "question", because I do not truly think it is being asked honestly.

Den was not "given a pass". Den made an EVENHANDED statement saying that political idiots on both sides were already starting to exploit the tragedy, and gave an example. He was not given a pass because there was nothing he said that required one.

I have disagreed with Den on multiple occasions. I have disagreed with (for example) Bill Mulligan on multiples of multiple occasions. I have disagreed publicly with our host on occasion. Nobody is "given a pass" because of their opinions. We are listened to, or not, because as a rule we don't shit where we eat.

Believe me, I would have been every bit as condemnatory had someone popped in and claimed something like "Bush's gun control policies are the direct reason these dozens are dead." It's dumb, it's designed almost entirely to piss people off and do naught else, and it was neither the appropriate time nor (in that thread) the appropriate venue for such things.

Rarely is my intention to offend anyone.

Then with all due respect, you seriously need to work on your presentation skills.

If you are interested in civil discussion, then please try to ... what's the term ... oh, yeah. ACT CIVILLY. And that doesn't just mean "don't swear at the Queen."

Now, if you want to be constructive from here, that sounds good -- you're clearly intelligent and could probably add a lot to the discussion, and there are certainly others here who have recovered from inauspicious debuts. If you'd rather fling prettily wrapped poo, go right on ahead. I'll be a safe distance from the monkey house.

TWL

Your remarks about the ease in which he obtained the gun, I hope, will have a bit more impact this time around, but it likely won't. The media seems to rather delve into psychological issues (such as disturbed writings and the people who knew the gunman) instead of focusing on how easily this disturbed person was able to obtain an incredibly powerful firearm with a minimum of effort.

In the weeks following Columbine, I was finishing my journalism degree and I performed a media analysis on Columbine in that time. I found an article, buried in the back of the front section of the Washington Post in the weeks following, explaining that the guns chosen by the Columbine shooters were banned assault weapons. However, the manufacturer, in order to skirt the ban, took this banned weapon, made minor modifications to it, and changed the name of the model. Just as powerful, just as deadly, and now...legal.

"Imagine a society in which guns are forbidden. Nobody is allowed to own a gun.

Then, imagine a society in which the ownership of guns is mandatory. Everybody over a certain age is issued a handgun. EVERYBODY."

Which society will have more murders? Which society will have more accidental deaths?

The latter. Definitely. Without question.

PAD

Robert - I won't bother to argue with you. I'll leave you to your precious right to kill people.

In my reality, there is no greater commodity than human life. It's as simple as that, and the fact remains - if every American were constantly armed, there would be more shootings and deaths than if none of them were. If you don't want to accept that horrible reality, feel free to keep living in Kill'Em All Land.

However, the manufacturer, in order to skirt the ban, took this banned weapon, made minor modifications to it, and changed the name of the model. Just as powerful, just as deadly, and now...legal.

That was one of the major weaknesses in the assault weapons ban. For a variety of reasons, Congress could not come up with a workable definition of an assault weapon, so instead, they simply put together a list of specific makes and models. Several manufacturers got around the ban simply by changing the name of their products.

Rarely is my intention to offend anyone.

The word "bullshit" comes to mind . . .

Dear DEN and All,

At no time have I been disrespectful of anyone in this discussion. Again, if you take it that way, that's your problem. Believe me, folks, I take this problem very seriously. I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That's a fact. After that, the choice is completely up to YOU. I have a 19 year old son just completing his freshman year, and I know that in the same situation as the kids at VT, he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others.
That usually means killing the bad guy before he kills you or anyone else. Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved. If that seems intemperate, so be it. The truth oftenasppears that way to some.

All the best,

Robert Preston

Dear PAD,

You're dead wrong sir. As Heinlein said,"An armed society is a polite society." Remember that. Literally, words to live by.

All the best,

Robert Preston

I was a student at UNC when Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar went on a joy ride in a pedestrian commons with his SUV in a similar kind of situation. Fortunately, no one died. The only reason that wasn't a Virginia Tech-scale massacre was because the town of Chapel Hill had more restrictive gun purchasing laws -- Taheri-azar said he WANTED a gun, he just couldn't buy one.

Seriously. Can the pro-gun people just all go away now?

Dear PAD,

You're dead wrong sir. As Heinlein said,"An armed society is a polite society." Remember that. Literally, words to live by.

-
The right thing to say would be... words to die by.

Besides, you're polite because you're afraid someone will shoot you? Wow.. that's a nice society.

Robert Preston, with all due respect, your presentation of your ideas is condescending and arrogant. That's not our problem for taking things that way...it's yours, if you truly care at all about the way you come off. If not, no biggie. If you do, I'd suggest you check your attitude at the door like the rest of us try to do, and continue.

As to whether an all-armed society would be safer, I don't think that's as much fact as you seem to think it was. I know the Wild West period of America has been romaticized and overhyped by Hollywood, but I'll suggest that one fact from that period is that there were more instances of citizens shooting other citizens than they are today, per capita.

What an all-armed society would do, and I agree, is prevent events like what happened this week, or at Columbine, because regular folks would be able to call on a weapon to defend themselves. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree with you there.

But in order for an all-armed society to truly have fewer weapon-related deaths than what we have today, we need for something more than just to hand out a firearm with everyone's 16th birthday. Because just handing someone a weapon doesn't make them a responsible, safe bearer of that weapon. We'd need to also make sure that every person bearing a weapon recieved proper training in the care and use of that weapon. And then we'd have to trust that training to stick.

Given our public schools' record for instilling permanent lessons, I don't have a lot of hope that such a system could pull that off. I took 4 years of advanced math in high school, and 4 months of college level calculus in college. Today, I can barely manage basic geometry.

So, if you were to add to your proposition that every person is armed, trained, and responsible, then, hell yeah, that's a safer society. But you know what? If every is trained and responsible, you DON'T NEED TO GIVE EVERYONE GUNS.

Fact is, there's plenty of people in this world, this country...maybe even reading this blog...who no amount of training will ever be safe handling a weapon. And more still that could be presented with a "heat of the moment" situation where, were they armed, would result in someone dead. Your all-armed world would trade massacres like this week's event for more killings of passion as husbands come home to find their wives in bed with another man, or arguments at the pickup basketball game erupt into OK Corrals. We'd be trading one kind of crime for another.

Which is better? Hell if I know. But y'know what? I'd feel a whole lot safer if I knew that legal gun sales were more regulated. If prospective purchasers had to give their permission to have not only their criminal records searched, but also their mental records, their school discipline records, maybe even the notes from their kindergarden teachers. Because it's getting to the point where, in order to prevent another Columbine, or VA. Tech., we need to curtail the rights of some in order to preserve the lives of others.

Your right to own a gun ends when you go crazy and decide to use that gun to end the life of another.

The problem with trying to generalize about this sort of event (it's about gun control, it's about depression, it's about mental health) is that it's an isolated incident. People trying to make this about a broader issue are forgetting that it's one person who did this -- and his motivations, whatever they were, were his own. Not everyone who's a loner, or who was in therapy, or who wrote violent works goes out and kills people. There were warning signs -- but if any of us suddenly snapped, I'm sure if someone looked hard enough, they'd see "signs" of our impending breakdown. ("He played violent video games!" "She wrote a depressing essay!" "The neighbor always thought they were a little moody.")

If this leads to better security on school campuses, that would be great. It it makes people reach out to one another, that would be nice. But ANY person or group who try to use this to advance their own agenda is contemptible.

Don't forget that some will try and muddle the issue as well with stuff like: cars kill people, knives kill people, plastic bags kill people, etc.

Anything and everything that allows them to conveniently ignore the real issues will be mentioned.

Robert Preston -
Again, if you take it that way, that's your problem.

In other words: "I'm an asshole, but it's your problem, not mine."

And you wonder why so many are against assholes having guns in the first place.

he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others.

I'm reminded of one Jessica Lynch. Perhaps you remember her? The Pentagon turned her into a propaganda piece.

She was trained for military service, including the use of a weapon.

But when the time came to use that weapon, she panicked.

So, how can you be so sure that anybody, including your son, would be prepared to 'do whatever it takes'?

Hand him a pistol, and he could be as likely to blow somebody else's head off as the guy he's really trying to stop.

And wouldn't you love to see the lawsuits from that.

"You're dead wrong sir. As Heinlein said,"An armed society is a polite society." Remember that. Literally, words to live by."

Heinlein didn't spend a lot of time in East LA.

PAD

Hmm, one more thought:

It also brings me back to thoughts on Osama bin Laden.

I'd love to personally drag him through the streets by the sack.

But were I given the chance to actually do it, would I? Could I?

I wouldn't know.

The same thing applies here to the notion of handing everybody a gun and telling them to defend themselves with it. You're just going to end up with a lot more bodies due to people who aren't prepared for those situations.

Is there any reason for semi-automatic weapons to be legal for ordinary citizens? He legally bought two guns a month apart in Virginia - a Walther .22-caliber pistol, Feb. 9 from a pawnshop, and then on March 16, he bought the second gun, a 9mm Glock 19, from Roanoke Firearms. Virginia law permits the purchase of one gun a month.

Neil

6) The victims will be blamed.

"Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy?... At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands."

Or, if the victims aren't at fault, it must be Islamic style terrorism by Asian immigrants, evolution, failure to believe in God or maybe just allowing the oddballs href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/223123.php">freedom

5) An upswing in incidents of students who write essays/poems/short stories themed around violence suddenly finding themselves tagged as potential shooters and being suspended or expelled.

Sounds like Columbine's aftermath all over again.

4) Advocates of unrestricted gun ownership holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be abolished because if everyone in the college had been packing, they could have fought back. Because in a confined environment where there's inevitably going to be drinking, partying, intense romances, and scads of young people lacking many aspects of maturity, that's what you really want to have on a daily basis: Lots of firepower.

Agreed. You know Christopher Bird, the guy who did the famous Civil War remixes and is currently involved in a half-serious campaign to become the new Legion of Super-Heroes writer? I was just looking at his livejournal, and here is what it says...

"A lot of people advancing the (moronic) 'this only happened because students aren't allowed to carry guns' argument re: Virginia Tech have been claiming that most mass shootings happen at schools.

Via Wikipedia, deadliest mass shootings in the USA since 1960:

Virginia Tech, 2007: Campus (33)
Killeen, 1991: Luby's (21)
San Ysidro, 1984: McDonald's (21)
Austin, 1966: Sniper on campus tower, shooting into both the school area and surrounding commercial district (17)
Edmond, 1986: Post office (15)
Littleton, 2002: School (15)
Atlanta, 1999: Office building (13)
Jacksonville, 1990: Loan office (10)
Red Lake, 2005: Home + school (9)
Fort Worth, 1999: Church hosting Christian rock concert (8)
Honolulu, 1999: Office building (7)
Wakefield, 1999: Office bulding (7)
Seattle, 2006: Rave party (7)
Nickel Mines, 2006: Amish schoolhouse (6)

I do this just to make it clear that that particular talking point is crap."

It occurs to me that a small population of armed folks can get along. But arm a population of 80 million people? That seems like a society on the brink of anarchy.

Take the Rodney King riots. Look how much damage a small group of rioters can do WITHOUT weapons. Imagine how much damage could have been done, in terms of life lost, if every single one of those very angry, very willing to commit violent acts people had been armed.

"Sure," Robert Preston would say, "the non-rioting people could have defended themselves with their own weapons by SHOOTING the rioters."

To what end? Either way, you end the day with hundreds, maybe thousands, dead. With an all-armed populace of millions, every day you run the risk of a small scale ware happening.

Hey, isn't there a part of the world, right now, where gun control is pretty non-existant. Where you can see people with guns walking down just about every street? Someplace that starts with I, ends with Q, and has ra in the middle? And isn't there, I dunno, like an ARMY there, not only armed to the teeth, but with tanks and stuff? I'm sure that's the safest, most polite, peaceful place in the world right now.

You wrote"Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved. If that seems intemperate, so be it. The truth oftenasppears that way to some."

How do you know this? How do you know that the staff and students at VT were NOT allowed, wer NOT not encouraged, to fight back?

Were you there? Do you work at VT?

How do you have all this inside information? How can you say how ANYONE else will react to extraordinary circumstances??

intemperate sir?? You've crossed that line a long time ago.

Again, if you take it that way, that's your problem.

Mr. Preston, and I mean this in the same spirit of respect you claim to adhere to at all times...

Go fuck yourself. Deeply and painfully. Ideally with one of the guns you value so highly.

Bye now.

All the best,
Tim Lynch

(Sorry about that, everyone else. Done now.)

Robert Preston: Had the staff and students at VT been allowed ... to fight back

Huh? There's some rule in the Campus Handbook that says you're not allowed to defend yourself when someone points a gun at you?

There was some hall monitor in the classroom making sure the victims didn't run too fast?

Dear PAD,

Why would one want to spend time in East L.A.? And if one did want to, and is properly armed, polite, and prepared, what would one have to fear?

All the best,

Robert Preston

Here's something I forgot to mention (I know I should collect all my thoughts in a single post...sorry).

I have no fond memories of high school. It was a shitty, hellish time of my life. When people say "kids are cruel" it's not only a cliche, it's an understatement.

I don't have any idea why Eric Harris and Dylan Kliebold (sp?) shot people who never hassled them. I don't understand that. But as for why they shot people who gave them a hard time, I understand it completely because in the past, when I was a teenager, I was driven to the breaking point by people like that. I so badly wanted to see them suffer and die.

I wanted to kill myself rather than go back to that goddamn place day after day after day for more of the same torment. But I heard these people talking at school one time. They were talking about a guy who had committed suicide. They were laughing about it and saying that it didn't matter because he was a loser anyway. I knew that if I killed myself, those cruel motherfuckers wouldn't learn anything, they wouldn't say "holy shit, I had no idea we'd hurt him that much, maybe we'd better be nicer to people." So that's when I thought that maybe if I took one of them out with me, THEN they'd get the message.

There was one day when I resolved to do it. But I live in Canada, where it ain't that easy to get a gun, particularly when you have no friends who can hook you up or tell you who to call. So I took a knife to school. I hid it in my coat. I walked around looking for an opportunity to sneak up on somebody when they were alone and stab them...planning to use the knife on myself immediately afterwards.

But in the end, I chickened out. I couldn't find anybody alone. I worried about whether I could do it or whether I'd fail. I worried about whether I'd have the willpower to stick a sharp object into my flesh hard enough to actually kill myself. So...nobody died.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if I'd had a gun, it would've been very different. Killing somebody by pulling the trigger of a gun is pretty much the same as pressing a button. It doesn't take willpower. You don't have to worry about whether you're gonna struggle with somebody and lose. Killing yourself with a gun takes a helluva lot less willpower than actually taking a knife to yourself. Again, it's just like pressing a button.

I may not be the happiest or most well-adjusted guy on the planet today...but I'm alive. So are the people I wanted to see dead back then. And the only reason that is so is because of Canadian gun control laws.

If human life is valuable to you, providing people with easy access to firearms will not produce the desired result of keeping people from falling victim to homicide. Not unless you can make sure that everybody treats everybody else with utmost respect and kindness and nobody has any motive whatsoever for murder.

I apologize for any discomfort these admissions may have caused among readers.

Robert Preston said:

"I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That's a fact."

What are you talking about? What was the Cold War about? Two nations were pointing weapons at each other to keep one another away, not to kill each other. They were threatening one another to change, not to die. Even heard of a hostage? They usually get guns pointed at them but not for the end of being a bloody corpse.

You really have no grasp of these things, do you?

Dear Mr. Lynch,

Thank you for sharing you opinion. And also for proving a point. I'll let you know how the procedure turns out.

All the best,

Robert Preston

In addition to what Rob Brown said, I had a friend who was once very suicidal. He kept telling everyone he wanted to die, that he SHOULD be dead, but that he didn't want to kill himself using what was available. He knew he could grab a sharp knife from the kitchen, he knew he could crash a car at 100+ mph, he knew he could stick his fingers in an electric outlet. But all he kept saying was, "I'd do it if someone could get me a gun." He's alive today because, thankfully, he couldn't get ahold of a gun.

Rob, it's a good point you make, and it sounds like you've overcome those demons, or at least continue to work against them.

Robert Preston may, attitude aside, be an entirely responsible gun owner. He may take training...it may in fact be mandatory. And even if it wasn't, maybe he'd take it anyway. He's apparantly instilled in his son the importance of being responsible, and being prepared. And if everyone could be as responsible as that, giving a weapon to everyone wouldn't be a big deal.

But as I said before, if you society were totally composed of responsible, respectful people, you wouldn't need weapons. We could have them, or not.

I've got a son. Among other things, I hope to teach him the importance of being prepared. Of taking a few moments to be aware of his surroundings. To spend a little thought about how he might react if...something...were to happen. A car careens out of control onto a sidewalk where he's walking. A high-rise windowpane plummets to the street. A gun-wielding student goes on a rampage near him.

Most of the time, I hope his actions allow him to defend himself...BY RUNNING AWAY. The best way to avoid danger is to... AVOID DANGER. Not shoot it before it shoots you. We say there's a fight or flight reflex. I want to instill a flight or fight impulse. Run/avoid should be your first response. Only when you have no choice should you stick around and try to fight something deadly. Because the risk if you fail is so much greater than if you just run away.

Cowardly? Not really. It's not like I'm trained in any realistic self-defense. I don't consider it cowardice to try and protect my life.

We forgot a theory/spin that will probably appear soon, if indeed it hasn't already:

6) That the whole thing was a Manchurian Candidate government conspiracy to draw attention away from the A.G. Gonzalez debacle.

As PAD said- By the writings this boy put out I suspect that someone abused him too (parent possibly since that's who was doing the abuse in his stories)... focusing on how to stop physical, mental, verbal, and sexual abuse of children would be more valuable then fighting about whether or not we need more gun control ...

Me? I hate guns, and I have no problem with tighter controls.

However I do not believe disarming citizens is a bright move. Historically, when governments disarms certain people groups- or to the extent of all citizens within their society, it hasn't been a good thing.

Still, as the Brits are proud to condescendingly tell us- it works for them. Is it because we are now more evolved? Yeah, I'm not so sure.

Soooo, I'm on the fence as well.

From the shores of another land, arguing over gun control is redundant. You have so may guns already in circulation that you'll never get rid of them.

Things like this will continue to happen, so long as people - abused or not, and that's far from 'obvious' - will feel so wretched, so alienated, so disconnected that something like this becomes the only way they have to make a sound that people will listen to.

And - for whatever it's worth - I'd agree that all of PAD's list shall come to pass, to some extent or another, as people look for some simple and convenient way to put a wrapper around what happened.

Because what really happened, I don't think any of us can really understand.

Cheers.

>I've been hearing Peter Gabriel's "Family Snapshot" in my head for the last day and a half or so. Anyone else getting echoes of that one?

Not I. But I did flash back to Andrew Vachss' short story DRESS-UP DAY.

>I think reasonable people would recognize that the first society would be safer, despite the fact that EVERYBODY could be armed in the second society.

Please explain, then, why Britain's crime rate [violent crime included] had shot up since they all but banned private ownership of weapons? Maybe it's as one criminal put it when interviewed in prison "well, if you've got a choice of where to commit a crime, where will you go? Somewhere where they can't defend themselves? Or someplace where you know they might shoot your head off?"

>I my guess as to the reason that Switzerland has such a low murder rate is that military training and service is mandatory. Discipline, a sense of duty as a citizen, and a healthy respect for the power of their weapon probably helps discourage most citizens from using their weapons for homicide.

Very possibly. In which case, again, the gun isn't the guilty party, it's society as a whole. And, so long as work on gun control to the exclusion of all else, the problem isn't going to go away. Remember McVeigh? He didn't use a gun. Remember, too, that there was a time, not that many years ago, where an awful lot of people were murdered/injured with baseball bats, possibly as many as with guns. And why not? The club was one of the first weapons Man learned to use.

Robert Preston: At no time have I been disrespectful of anyone in this discussion.

Earlier...

Robert Preston: Your posting has got to be one of the most ignorant idiotic statements that I've ever read outside of Mother Jones magazine.

Hmm.

Regarding Kurt's question:

Then, imagine a society in which the ownership of guns is mandatory. Everybody over a certain age is issued a handgun. EVERYBODY.

Being pedantic, I imagine that the death toll will depend a lot on what you set that "certain age" to be. E.g. if you make it 100 years old, there won't be much difference from your "no guns at all" scenario. If you make it 1 year old, I'd expect a huge mortality rate from babies who have no idea what a gun is, and stick it in their mouths. Obviously these are both extreme cases, but I think there is an argument for saying that you ought to reach a certain level of maturity before being issued with a lethal weapon.

Personally, I'm on the "anti gun" side of the fence. This may be because I've lived in England all my life, so the only times I've seen guns in real life are when the army/police are carrying them. Mind you, thinking back to one of PAD's "Young Justice storylines, I also think that there's a romantic appeal to the idea of a bow and arrow, even though that can be an equally lethal projectile weapon. Speculating widly, I wonder how much of the "pro gun" enthusiasm comes from American cultural history, e.g. the wild west vs the middle ages?

Robert - why is it that the United States has a higher gun-death rate than "regulated" countries like Canada and the United Kingdom?

Want to know how many police officers suffered gun-related deaths in the US in 2005 alone? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 60.

Want to know how many officers in the UK have suffered gun-related deaths in the past twenty years? (It should be noted that they also very rarely carry guns while on duty). 11. About 1/6th. It's true that the US has a larger population - and therefore, more police - but the size difference comes nowhere near explaining the considerably smaller portion of deaths by gunfire.

But don't let the logic hit you in the ass on the way out.

Posted by: Rene at April 18, 2007 02:05 PM

"Imagine a society in which guns are forbidden. Nobody is allowed to own a gun."

The problem here is that you're dealing with extreme and theoretical situations.

No you aren't. I live in that society. Possession of firearms is outlawed in the UK.

It does somewhat trouble me that the UK's parroting of the US coverage of this tragedy is so blatant - if we were leading our own coverage, you'd see a lot more attention brought to the fact that the man who sold this guy a gun - who failed to complete the correct security checks on him before selling him a lethal weapon - expressed that he had no regret whatsoever in selling him the gun - that it "wasn't his fault" in the slightest. I really, truly hope he doesn't really believe that.

It's a shame that the coverage is all centred around psychological issues, which are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to solve... and not the rather obvious issue that a man with clear mental health problems successfully obtained a gun by lying on an application form.

(I can't understand this "self-defence", er, defence. You defend yourself by killing your attacker? Riiiiiight...)

Dear kurt, PAD and All,

Britain is no example of how to do ANYTHING. The government chastises, at best, and prosecutes, at worst ANYONE who fights back against criminals. In short, the British citizen is not allowed to defend themselves.
This has been my second foray into "blogging". I'm still not impressed, but I'm not ready to give up just yet. It is always a good thing to read and keep opposing views in mind. But...
To answer all of the ridiculousness put forth here by such people as kurt, ZEEK, Tim Lynch, and Neil Ottenstein, to name a few, would take too much time. I have a pretty good idea of how most people who post here think. Not all, but most. As a parting shot, I believe many of you will agree, whether you admit it or not, that the only good to come of this insanity, is the fact that this goblin will not have a chance to breed.

All the best,

Robert Preston

"No you aren't. I live in that society. Possession of firearms is outlawed in the UK."

Heavily regulated is not the same as outlawed. And outlawed also is not the same as no one possessing firearms. So no, I don't think UK society represents the gun-free society Kurt seemed to be alluding to in his comparision.

I also live in a society (Brazil) with restrictive gun control laws. But it's so easy to acquire a gun illegaly here that this may color my views on the issue and make me skeptical about the utopian results of gun control laws.

But if I had to chose between US and UK legislations on the issue, I'd chose UK. I too think it's ridiculous that you can legally buy a firearm in the US without a through psychological profile.

Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 05:40 PM

This has been my second foray into "blogging". I'm still not impressed,

People like you who are without self-awareness always amuse me. You've made a jackass of yourself yet you cling to the delusion that your opinion matters to anyone besides you.

Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 05:40 PM

but I'm not ready to give up just yet.

Of course you're not. You need to keep going to places like this, where you're not wanted, because you have nowhere else to go.

Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 05:40 PM

As a parting shot, I believe many of you will agree, whether you admit it or not, that the only good to come of this insanity, is the fact that this goblin will not have a chance to breed.

I'm sure that's cold comfort to the friends and family of those who were murdered. Anyone with even the slightest ability to empathize with other human beings would realize that. In other words, anyone who is not like you.

You are a small, small person, Bobby. In your infantile self-absorption, you imagine that nothing can exist beyond your severely limited horizons. You cannot understand the thoughts of people whose horizons are not so limited, and are lashing out at what you cannot understand like a frightened child.

Again, it is not your politics that are the problem. The problem was, is, and will continue to be you and you alone. Or, to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., I judge you not by your politics but by the content of your character. That content is thin and of low quality. What's sad is that you'll never understand that and will therefore never have the chance to grow beyond the limited little person that you are.

I grew up in a house with a gun (.22 rifle). Never even thought about touching it. In 40 years, my father used it twice, once on a rabid animal the police wouldn't come get, and once on a bird that was attacking our cat at his dish. Owning a gun is one thing. Owning an Uzi with armor-piercing bullets is not defense, it's offense, and offensive.
Several years ago, 60 minutes did a big story showing that 90% of illegal weapons are taken from the factories, before they even get shipped. When is Congress going to stand up to lobbyists and demand tighter accountability from the get go? That's not anywhere near a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Please explain, then, why Britain's crime rate [violent crime included] had shot up since they all but banned private ownership of weapons? Maybe it's as one criminal put it when interviewed in prison "well, if you've got a choice of where to commit a crime, where will you go? Somewhere where they can't defend themselves? Or someplace where you know they might shoot your head off?"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041105.html

"Malcolm claims that because UK crooks don't fear disarmed householders, half of burglaries there take place while someone is home, a much larger fraction than in the U.S. Not so--close analysis of the data suggests "hot" burglary rates in the two countries aren't dramatically different."

"Whatever Malcolm may think, there's no direct correlation between weapons restrictions and crime. As she points out, the UK began requiring gun permits in 1920 and in 1953 prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons, even things like Mace. While a slow rise in the UK crime rate began in the mid-1950s, the rate didn't increase sharply until the 80s. Handguns were banned altogether in 1997."

"Rising crime in Britain surely has a lot to do with the lousy economy. From 1974 to 1999 the UK unemployment rate averaged more than 10 percent. It's lower now, but a lot of antisocial behavior became entrenched during that time. Soccer hooliganism is one example; I'd say crime in general is another."

Regarding an earlier comment about King's "Bachman" book, The Long Walk, there's another "Bachman" (title lost in the hazes of impending early senility, apparently) in which a student with a handgun takes his class hostage. King wrote the four "Bachman" books while still in college, i think. Imagine if that manuscript were to come to light on a student's computer these days.

=====================

Posted by Robert Preston

You're dead wrong sir. As Heinlein said,"An armed society is a polite society." Remember that. Literally, words to live by.

It was actually said first, (about a barbarian society) i believe, by a pathological mama's boy who wrote violent fiction and killed himself when his mother died.

Fellow name of Robert E. Howard.

=======================

The people who have mentioned songs that come to mind remind me that, whenever i hear about incidents like this, i flash on the Boomtown Rats' "I Don't Like Mondays" (which was written as the events it commemorates were coming in over the news wire as they did an interview in studio at the Georgia State University radio station).

=========================

Posted by Bobb Alfred

Take the Rodney King riots. Look how much damage a small group of rioters can do WITHOUT weapons. Imagine how much damage could have been done, in terms of life lost, if every single one of those very angry, very willing to commit violent acts people had been armed.

"Sure," Robert Preston would say, "the non-rioting people could have defended themselves with their own weapons by SHOOTING the rioters."

I saw a live, unedited satellite feed from that riot. It clearly showed people, who appeared to be shop owners, on the roofs of their barricaded and untouched shops with rifles, firing apparently at random into the crowds below.

=======================

Posted by Robert Preston

Why would one want to spend time in East L.A.?

Perhaps one lives there, for any number of reasons, including poverty and/or bigotry.

And if one did want to, and is properly armed, polite, and prepared, what would one have to fear?

Oh, i don't know. Why don't you ask the same question of the soldiers in Baghdad?

============================

Posted by polo

Robert Preston said:

"I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That's a fact."

What are you talking about? What was the Cold War about? Two nations were pointing weapons at each other to keep one another away, not to kill each other. They were threatening one another to change, not to die. Even heard of a hostage? They usually get guns pointed at them but not for the end of being a bloody corpse.

You really have no grasp of these things, do you?

Actually, on this one, i have to side with Robert.

Damon Runyon wrote, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." You are perfectly free to assume, if you'd like, that if someone points a gun at you, he just wants you to be a nice hostage and behave. But i wouldn't. Too damned many hostages wind up dead - often by accident.

A gun is an implement for killing. It is not a magic wand that makes things work your way. Yes, some people will obey a man with a gun for fear of death (or of pain, a stronger fear in my case and in that of many others, i suspect).

But if you ever draw a gun on me (or any of a number of other people i know/know of, many of them a lot more dangerous than i), you'd better shoot it right then. Because, if i'm out of arm's reach of you, i'll do whatever i have to to survive... and afterward i'll find you. But if you're close enough to grab, one of us will likely die right there.

In real life, the only think you can actually do with a gun is shoot it.

At one time the FBI's doctrine was "Never draw except to shoot. Never shoot except to kill."

just because a citizen is ALLOWED to own a gun does not mean they have to be so readily available. Let's get rid of gun shows that allow sales first. It also doesn't mean that you should have access to all forms of weapons. So lets get rid of weapons that are cappable of high powered multiple shots. Personally, I like the buy back program initiated in Australia. Weapons SHOULD be regulated. Even many in the NRA think this.

Sorry about the typos. I have a new puppy on my lap.

Dear "Billy",

As with all other correspondence with you, this last one is still unimpressive. The only comfort the family members of the slain have is the fact that the THING that did it is dead, and not running around loose. Perhaps if he had been caught alive, he might have gotten "Life" in prison. That would be of comfort to you and maybe them. As things stand, there is no comfort for any of us, without a willingness to stand up for what we believe.
Please, broaden my horizons. I can't wait to see the light.

All the best,

Robert Preston

Dear Mr. Weber,

You're incorrect. Look it up, or site your source.

All the best,

Robert Preston

Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 06:36 PM

As with all other correspondence with you, this last one is still unimpressive.

Which would be relevant if I gave a crap about impressing you. Which I don't. So it's not.

And it's obvious I struck a nerve with you, Sparky. You once invited me to correspond with you via e-mail. I rejected your overture on the grounds that you're not someone I wanna know. Now you've changed your tune because I hurt your widdle feelings.

You're a troll, and completely not worth my time. This will be my last post to you, about you, or even acknowledging your existence.

Dear "Billy",

During my first foray into blogging, I ran afoul of you. That was over some political comments made by both sides earlier, but your words did not fill me with fear as you have suggested here. Publicly. Neither do they now. If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe, then by all means, don't give up. If you don't stir the pudding, it gets lumpy, and then no one likes it.
But understand this. Political Correctness is not going to insert itself into what I write, to you or anyone. Perhaps PAD can hire you as an editor.

All the best,

Robert Preston

"If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe."

Do you have any reason to doubt it?

Heck, if this wasn't an open forum, PAD would have booted me out a long time ago. :)

Personally, I like the buy back program initiated in Australia.

Snopes argues both sides of the statistics cited for the Australian case, but the overall effect on crime has been statistically negligible based on the population (although glaringly higher if one takes the previously low number of crimes and compares it to the new -- still quite low -- number of crimes since the buyback.)

At no time have I been disrespectful of anyone in this discussion. Again, if you take it that way, that's your problem.

That's pretty disrespectful right there. You should be at least open to the possibility that you caused offense, even if it was unintended.

Believe me, folks, I take this problem very seriously. I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That's a fact.

No, not really. Sometimes it's just to get you to do what they want. They number of people threatened with guns is much smaller than the number of people killed by them.

After that, the choice is completely up to YOU. I have a 19 year old son just completing his freshman year, and I know that in the same situation as the kids at VT, he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others.

I can understand your feelings. It's tough to have a kid who could have easily been in the same situation. Preparation is good.

That usually means killing the bad guy before he kills you or anyone else. Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved. If that seems intemperate, so be it. The truth often appears that way to some.

Even if people were allowed to have guns on campus I doubt that most would have them. The hard reality is that if someone intends to die they can do a lot of damage and not much can be done about it. A maniac with a sword on a crowded street could kill dozens--more if he chose his spot wisely.

Trying to kill the guy sound like pretty poor advise--barricade the doors.

I was a student at UNC when Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar went on a joy ride in a pedestrian commons with his SUV in a similar kind of situation. Fortunately, no one died. The only reason that wasn't a Virginia Tech-scale massacre was because the town of Chapel Hill had more restrictive gun purchasing laws -- Taheri-azar said he WANTED a gun, he just couldn't buy one.

I'm glad you made it through that one ok but as someone who lives not far from you...getting a gun should not have been a problem. This is North Carolina. If he could not figure out how to get a gun, legally or not, there are a lot of criminals in Durham who could tell him how it's done.

Take the Rodney King riots. Look how much damage a small group of rioters can do WITHOUT weapons. Imagine how much damage could have been done, in terms of life lost, if every single one of those very angry, very willing to commit violent acts people had been armed.

The argument would be NOT that people could shoot at the rioters but that people would be very unlikely to riot if they knew that the store owners, truck drivers, etc would be packing heat.

Don't know if that's a valid argument or not. It's hard to make conclusions based on what we have here. Some places have strict gun control laws and you wouldn't want to wak down the streets. Other places have lax rules and are safer. The statistics are all over the place and it's hard to trust them, given the bias of those reporting them.

Why would one want to spend time in East L.A.? And if one did want to, and is properly armed, polite, and prepared, what would one have to fear?

You seem to assume that an armed person is safe. tell it to the cops killed every year. We can argue whether or not having a gun makes you safer but surely you understand it doesn't make you invulnerable.

Most of the time, I hope his actions allow him to defend himself...BY RUNNING AWAY. The best way to avoid danger is to... AVOID DANGER. Not shoot it before it shoots you. We say there's a fight or flight reflex. I want to instill a flight or fight impulse. Run/avoid should be your first response. Only when you have no choice should you stick around and try to fight something deadly. Because the risk if you fail is so much greater than if you just run away.

Exactly. Right on.

Now. That said, we have to acknowledge the heroism of Liviu Librescu, a holocaust survivor who kept the shooter out of the classroom at a cost of his own life.

This has been my second foray into "blogging". I'm still not impressed,

Or too impressive, I have to say. You aren't doing your argument any good.

Dear "Billy",

I don't know if Bill Myers is offended by "Billy" but most of the Bills I know, myself included, don't mind. Now "William"...that's usually reserved for when we screw up. When it's followed by my middle name I know I am in serious trouble and if my wife says the whole 3 names it's time to move to Mexico.

If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe,

In what way is that in any doubt? Have you been banned? Does open mean your words have to go unchallenged?

If you don't stir the pudding, it gets lumpy, and then no one likes it.

We already have a couple of people who see themselves as the tools that stir the pudding. the last thing we need is another tool.

Well, at least we know our politicians will do what is needed to make sure this never happens again:

http://ibtimes.com/articles/20070417/ny-spitzer-video-games.htm

NY Gov Targets Violent Video Games

Here's my opinion. If we have an armed society wherein all citizens are armed, how long before someone, for what ever reason, like at VT, starts shooting people in a crowd. So, how does an armed citizen avoid shooting anyone else in "defending him/herself?" If you miss, you might well hit someone else. Or you might be hit by someone trying to defend his/herself. Crossfire.

No, I don't know what laws should be passed, but I know the ones we have are too loose and too free. If you think guns are the solution for self protection, then these words are lost on you. If you think you need protection from the government, I have news for you. The government has bigger guns than any citizens will ever be able to afford or even just possess. Find a gun in Wal-Mart that will "protect" you from a tank.

Lots of luck.

"After that, the choice is completely up to YOU. I have a 19 year old son just completing his freshman year, and I know that in the same situation as the kids at VT, he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others."

"I can understand your feelings. It's tough to have a kid who could have easily been in the same situation. Preparation is good."

Short of going through military or police training, and even after such training, it is hard to know how a person will react under fire. The kind of behavior exhibited by Liviu Librescu is not the result of preparation. It's some undefined quality that manifests itself in extreme situations.

It is hard to tell what would have happened if some of the students had guns. They could have taken him down after he killed fewer students, or they might have added to the mess, shot each other, hit bystanders.

"The argument would be NOT that people could shoot at the rioters but that people would be very unlikely to riot if they knew that the store owners, truck drivers, etc would be packing heat."

Many store owners do, don't they? I don't know if such considerations affect people who are in a state of mind to riot.

----------------

Ever since the massacre I've been wondering why something like that doesn't happen here in Israel. After all, at any given moment you can see soldiers with assault rifles, and maybe one person with a gun. And Israelis are certainly not less crazy than Americans. I have no answer.

I also often wonder how I would behave in a similar situation. I don't know the answer for that either.

Ever since the massacre I've been wondering why something like that doesn't happen here in Israel. After all, at any given moment you can see soldiers with assault rifles, and maybe one person with a gun. And Israelis are certainly not less crazy than Americans. I have no answer.

Israel might be an example of whaty the pro-gun folks argue for--what kind of moron would go into a cafe in Israel and wave a gun around while quoting Pulp Fiction? It would be like robbing a donut shop in America (Sorry Jerry, obligatory "cops in donut shop" joke).

How easy IS it to get a legal gun permit in Israel?

"Israel might be an example of whaty the pro-gun folks argue for--what kind of moron would go into a cafe in Israel and wave a gun around while quoting Pulp Fiction?"

I don't think our experience fits that assumption. I don't think our crazies refrain from going to cafes and shooting because they are afraid of being shot. But I remember only one case where someone went crazy and started shooting people that was not related to the conflict. I think in that case somebody with a gun did take him down. In jerusalem at least what would stop going into a cafe and shooting people is the security guard outside.

"How easy IS it to get a legal gun permit in Israel?"

I really don't know.

In Israel people have guns,but they do not have the cultural associations to them that you have in the US. They are just tools that soldiers and other people who need them have. But I'm not saying that's why things like that are less likely to happen here. I don't even know if they are really less likely, althogh I haven't considered them to be until now. I don't know if the cultural differences between Israel and the US with regard to gun is the answer or even part of the answer to my question. The Palestinians also have a lot of guns, and they suffer from a lot of lawlessness. And the Swiss have had peace for centuries. Go figure.

>I saw a live, unedited satellite feed from that riot. It clearly showed people, who appeared to be shop owners, on the roofs of their barricaded and untouched shops with rifles, firing apparently at random into the crowds below.

Which is different from the draft riots in the Civil War where the authorities has Gattling guns on the roof of buildings of Wall Street to use on rioters, how, exactly? Oh, wait a minute! It's the government so it's OK, right?

>Personally, I like the buy back program initiated in Australia. Weapons SHOULD be regulated.

Which would be great ... if it worked. Canada has had strict gun control on handguns since '34. And what comparatively few legally-owned handguns are out there here are heavily regulated and all registered. Funny thing about that. When the government came up with their idiotic idea of registering rifles and other 'long guns' in the mid 90s, one paper did a bit of digging and learned that, "of the 437 handguns seized by police in Ontario in 1995, only 55 (12.5 per cent) were registered. In 1994, 752 handguns were seized, of which only 80 (10.6 per cent) were registered" proving how ineffective the whole thing is.

>No, I don't know what laws should be passed, but I know the ones we have are too loose and too free.

We have much tighter laws, but it doesn't help much. Even the then-Justice Minister pointed out that much of this won't work unless there's universal compliance. And, as subsequent events proved (which anyone with more than half a brain knew going in, but not our politicians), hard as it may be to grasp, criminals don't tend to obey the law. Gun laws included.

>Even if people were allowed to have guns on campus I doubt that most would have them. The hard reality is that if someone intends to die they can do a lot of damage and not much can be done about it. A maniac with a sword on a crowded street could kill dozens--more if he chose his spot wisely.

All of which pales compared to what a chemistry or physics major could do if they joined the dark side. Remember how many people were killed, not to mention thousands injured in the sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway? Look at McVeigh. In one attack he topped the total of several of those US gun-using mass killings put together - and with just a simple, home-made explosive.

Robert Preston:"... he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to survive and save others."

Tough talk, but highly unlikely. In my experience, the ones who most need to talk tough about themselves or about those that they've trained are usually the first to crumble. It's a bit like all the chicken-hawks who ducked service talking about how great it is to fight in war.

Mike Weber: "In real life, the only think you can actually do with a gun is shoot it.
At one time the FBI's doctrine was "Never draw except to shoot. Never shoot except to kill.""

Not true. In six years, I've drawn my gun twice in the line of duty. In neither of the situations did I or any other officer fire their weapon. A show of force sometimes does the job quite well.

In twenty-one years of law enforcement service, my father drew his weapon any number of times. He fired it in the line of duty twice.

Robert Preston: "... the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That's a fact."

Not really. There have been any number of people held up and robbed at gun point and never been shot. Even scumbags can draw a line for their behavior. I know a sheriff's deputy who took an unloaded gun off of a robbery suspect. The guy would steal you blind, but he drew the line at killing. Stupid, but true.

Robert Preston: "Had the staff and students at VT been allowed, if not encouraged, to fight back, some of them might possibly have been saved."

Yeah, having potential targets run down a narrow hall AT the shooter would have been so much smarter then heading in the other direction.

The idea that more guns would have solved the problem is, quite frankly, foolish. Who would you have proposed to arm in this situation? The students? It's not really that swift of an idea to arm large groups of 17, 18 and 19 year olds. Part of the reason that the legal age requirement is higher then that in many states is because that group tends to not show the greatest levels of discipline to begin with.

Maybe you want to arm the teachers? These would be the same people that all the conservatives spend their airtime abusing and insulting them for their liberalism. Going by that idea, you'll either have people that won't carry the guns or won't use them. Not much good that.

Plus, if you did get lots of people jumping in to play, the sheer number of additional deaths would be incredible. Three reasons:

Number one: You hear gunfire, screaming and shouts. You whip out your gun and, in fine John Wayne fashion, head in that direction. You see a guy waving a gun and yell at him (if you even bother giving him the chance to shoot at you) to drop his weapon. He turns and points his weapon at you. You fire and put a round center mass, killing him.

Then you hear the real shooter shooting someone else. Or maybe you just hear another self styled Rambo killing another self styled Martin Riggs while the real shooter is somewhere else entirely.

You don't know enough about what's going on. No one does. Even the police aren't working on the best information sometimes. We've had BOLOs come over VCIN for local robberies or shootings where the description of the suspect has changed two or three times in fifteen minutes. Sometimes they even change the race of the shooter due to conflicting first accounts. How much worse do you want to make it for first responders? How many more people do you want shot because the police are going into an active shooter situation where additional idiots are running around and waving their guns at every sound?

Number two: I'm guessing you've never been in a shooter situation or anything even remotely like it. I know people who have. I know trained officers who've been in shootings. Wanna know something? They miss more shots then they hit due to adrenaline screwing up their ability with a gun.

Even in simple training with simunitions, our accuracy drops. We train a lot more then you, your son or most any hypothetical person you may bring up, and we still don't put every shot in the target when the adrenaline hits. There have been documented cases of groups of highly trained soldiers or officers firing fifty or more rounds at close range and only putting ten to twenty in the target.

Now add amateur Rambos to the mix. The odds of even more deaths increases significantly due to stray rounds and amateur stupidity. Again, not that great an option.

Third reason: You decide to Rambo your way in on a shooter and get shot, but not killed. Then the police arrive and you have a hostage situation to deal with. I'm sure people will think kindly of you for that.

I'm sorry, while I'm for gun ownership, but your kind of idiot bothers me and most every cop I know. The only thing that would be worse then the bad guy in most situations would be a self-styled rambo running in to save the day and tripping over himself.

The best thing the students did was to head in the opposite direction of the gunfire. That's the direction where safety is. Beyond that, people with minimal training have no business running into danger and putting their lives, other civilians' lives and first responders' lives at risk.

No, there are no good reasons to back your arguments and there are no good ideas coming out of your posts. And Virginia's gun laws pertaining to purchasing drive me nuts. It's harder to get your drivers license renewed in this state then it is to get a gun. There's something very wrong with that.

Micha,

I met some guys that were part of an Israeli security team while taking a class at Quantico. If they were any example of how well most of the military security units in Israel are trained, I would think most people there would be afraid to deal with them.

Their primary specialty was dealing with hostage or terrorist incidents in airports. When they started doing training drills on the firing range, even guys who can score high 90's in their sleep on the range put their guns up for fear of looking like rank amateurs and embarrassing themselves. I mean, I've seen some damned good shooters before, but..... Damn.

"How easy IS it to get a legal gun permit in Israel?"

OK, I checked online. Not very user-friendly bureaocracy. It seems that it is quite a procedure to privately own a gun, involving also getting an OK from the department of health. It also seems that if you want a gun you have to have a good reason to own one, like being a security guard or own a jewelery store. You also have to be 21 (but I think the drinking age is 18). In short, Robert Preston would consider it hell. But, like I said, Israelis don't think of guns the way Americans do, yet at the same time tey are all around us, more than in the US. Strange.

I'd heard of a few cases where israeli sttlers shot back at palestinian terrorists--were they more easily granted guns because of where they were?

Oh, Robert... Your asinine comments about someone else feeling sorry for the killer's parents?

You're a complete ass.

I've know quite a few good parents who did everything that good parents are supposed to do and they still ended up with a black sheep. Ted Kaczynski is a first class loon. His brother is, by all accounts, a good man. He even turned Teddy in. My mother is one of five children. Four of them turned out really well. My uncle is a drug using con artist and scumbag.

And there is nothing you can do if the killer is mentally ill. He may not have truly hit his breakdown point and showing any real signs until after leaving home and his parents care.

Admitting that you feel sorry for the parents of a child who went that wrong is nothing more then showing some level of decency and humanity. Your comments on the subject show off your tendencies to be an unintelligent ass.

Robert Preston posted:

You're incorrect. Look it up, or site your source.

Howard said "A barbarian society is a polite society"

And, since he killed himself in 1936, before RAH ever actually published anything, he certainly comes first.

Posted by Jerry Chandler

Mike Weber: "In real life, the only think you can actually do with a gun is shoot it. At one time the FBI's doctrine was "Never draw except to shoot. Never shoot except to kill.""

Not true. In six years, I've drawn my gun twice in the line of duty. In neither of the situations did I or any other officer fire their weapon. A show of force sometimes does the job quite well.

Sometimes. But Fulton County cops just shot two men in a nightclub parking lot, locally. They tried to break up a fight and the fighters turned on them. And apparently ignored the "show of force".

In twenty-one years of law enforcement service, my father drew his weapon any number of times. He fired it in the line of duty twice

However, neither you nor he are in the FBI, either, right?

A "show of force" by a uniformed officer is a bit different from a nervous bank robber holding a gun on a hostage, or from a plain-clothes Special Agent in a tense situation facing such a guy.

And at what point are you willing to change your "show of force" into an actual shooting? How close does the guy who figures you won't shoot going to have to get before you do? Or how many steps does the guy walking away or otherwise ignoring your orders have to take before you fire?

I re-iterate, quoting Donald Hamilton: "The only thing you can do with a gun is shoot it." If you're not damned sure you're willing to shoot it and you don't think it would taste good, don't draw it.

Number two: I'm guessing you've never been in a shooter situation or anything even remotely like it. I know people who have. I know trained officers who've been in shootings. Wanna know something? They miss more shots then they hit due to adrenaline screwing up their ability with a gun.

I have. Luckily, it turned out i didn't have to shoot any people. (Though one idiot in Viet Nam apparently never *did* believe how close he come to being a "friendly fire" statistic when he sacred hell out of me and my buddy about 2AM on a special guard duty...)

There was a situation in NYC (mentioned in some book Serpico, maybe?) in which a Bad Guy in court got hold of a gun somehow, took the judge hostage, and demanded to talk to someone from the DA's office.

A cop pretending to be an assistant DA, with a hideout .32 auto strapped to his ankle went in, offering himself in exchange for the judge; the cop and the Bad Guy sat down opposite each other at a standard conference table. The cop saw his chance, grabbed for the piece, and both shot their guns empty. Across a conference table.

The cop then threw away the gun and wrestled the Bad Guy into submission.

I met some guys that were part of an Israeli security team while taking a class at Quantico. If they were any example of how well most of the military security units in Israel are trained, I would think most people there would be afraid to deal with them.

Their primary specialty was dealing with hostage or terrorist incidents in airports. When they started doing training drills on the firing range, even guys who can score high 90's in their sleep on the range put their guns up for fear of looking like rank amateurs and embarrassing themselves. I mean, I've seen some damned good shooters before, but..... Damn.

When i was in Viet Nam, i met some Australian Air Commandos. Personally, i'd rather not be in the same war with them, much less the same firefight. Not that i think they would be likely to shoot me by mistake, but becaue of the old tenet that holds "Never share a foxhole with someone braver/crazier than yourself."

Those just boyos didn't *care*.

One of them looked as if he was seriously ready to show us how well his FN machine pistol worked by shooting a weathervane off a building on the Army base. Outside the Main Exchange. With two armed MPs standing right there and getting tenser by the minute...

"During my first foray into blogging, I ran afoul of you. That was over some political comments made by both sides earlier..."

I should stick by my vow to ignore you, but you're doing something that really burns me: you're lying. And you're doing it in such a way that it insults the intelligence of every poster here. Because what really happened is in the blog archives for all to see. It really doesn't make sense to lie about what you said when what you said is a matter of public record.

See, you didn't run afoul of me over political comments. You ran afoul of me because you insulted every poster here by declaring that no one -- NO ONE -- who blogs here regularly would have the guts to sacrifice their life for that of another. That's not a political comment. It's a personal one.

"...but your words did not fill me with fear as you have suggested here. Publicly. Neither do they now."

Again, you're lying. I never said I scared you. I said I HURT YOUR FEELINGS. Which I clearly did. Because you inivited me to start an e-mail correspondence with you and I declined because, well, as a person you SUCK. And I said so. Publicly.

"If this is truly an open forum, as PAD would have all believe, then by all means, don't give up."

I haven't given up on this forum. I've given up on you because you're an obnoxious little wretch.

And this IS an open forum. If it wasn't, Peter would've booted your sorry ass out of here from the get-go. The same openness that enables you to use this blog to act like a dick enables me to tell you that you are a dick.

By the way -- I don't give a rat's ass about your emotional reactions to me. Be afraid, be sad, be happy, be angry, be whatever -- I don't care.

"If you don't stir the pudding, it gets lumpy, and then no one likes it."

Don't fool yourself into thinking you're serving a necessary function around here. Were you to leave now, we'd be none the poorer for your absence.

"But understand this. Political Correctness is not going to insert itself into what I write, to you or anyone."

NO, SPARKY. YOU. UNDERSTAND. THIS:

Your politics aren't your problem. It's your shitty personality.

I like many conservative commentators. George Will and David Brooks come immediately to mind. And there are certain conservative principles with which I agree, including the belief that "the government that governs least governs best." Hell, Bill Mulligan is fairly conservative, and he and I are actually friends.

I am not reacting negatively to your politics. Stop hiding behind the mantle of conservatism, because conservatism isn't the problem. If you can cram one thought into that noggin of yours, let it be this:

I am not rejecting your politics.

I. Am. Rejecting. YOU.

Sadly, in as open an environment as your average university, if somebody wants to rack up a body count and really puts their mind to it, odds are they'll find a way to do it. Not to make light in any way, shape, or form, but what's the Klingon proverb? "A thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man."

While I don't like guns very much, that's one genie that just isn't going back into the bottle. Training and education are the key, as well as background checks. Testing and liscensing are required to practice medicine in any capacity, drive a car, hell, to be a bartender. But any weekend warrior with an itchy trigger finger who can't hit the broad side of a barn can legally get his hands on enough firepower to lay seige to a small town? Something's just not right with that equation.

Posted by: Robert Preston at April 18, 2007 03:36 PM
I absolutely understand the difference between fantasy, and reality, and the reality is that when someone points a gun at you, they mean to kill you. That's a fact.

Oh, shit. That means I actually died about 12 years ago.

*Disappears in a puff of logic*

Mike Weber,

I'll argee with most of your post, but even your post refutes the statement that the only thing you can do with a gun is shoot it. Sometimes you will. More times then not (outside of a war zone) you won't.

"However, neither you nor he are in the FBI, either, right?"

Nope. However, my dad did spend a lot of time in the 80's working on a multi-jurisdictional unit that dealt with drug smuggling on the I-95 corridor in the Petersburg/Richmond area. Lots of fun that was. He also saw time in Korea and Vietnam when he was in the military. I think that’s why he liked working as a cop in Petersburg in the 80’s. It was something familiar to him.

You’d kinds have to be a local to get that.

Now that I've gotten THAT out of my system...

I think the problem here is that many of us are trying to cope with a senseless tragedy by constructing an explanation. Some of us are grasping for something that will help us regain a sense of control, a sense that there is order in the world.

This tragedy demonstrates that we do not have such control, and that the kind of order we crave does not exist. Senseless things happen. Lives are lost for no damn good reason, and others are scarred forever by the loss.

Even if this tragedy could've been prevented, another one would've snuck up on us and bitten us in the collective ass. We can argue about more guns vs. less guns to our hearts content, but... I don't think it would've made a difference. This disturbed individual would've found a way to kill and maim people no matter what.

We can talk about recognizing the signs but this sort of thing is an exception to the rule of everyday life. Seriously -- how many mass murderers do YOU know? It's so far outside of the realm of our normal experience, it's hard to know how to react. Even if you recongize the signs... what do you DO? Being creepy isn't against the law.

Bottom line: the best thing we can do is to recognize that we mustn't take our lives, nor the lives around us, for granted.

I'm stealing Rex Hondo's post from another thread because it underscores one of my points so well.

"Cho had an older sister, Sun-Kyung, who graduated from Princeton University with an economics degree in 2004, Princeton officials confirmed.

The Princeton student newspaper reported Wednesday that she is pursuing a career as a State Department contractor working on the reconstruction of Iraq. It said that Sun-Kyung Cho was “palpably upset” when it contacted her and that she refused its requests for an interview.

I pray for her that the stigma of being related to a killer doesn't destroy her life and carreer.

-Rex Hondo-"

She seemed to have turned out all right. Again, the parents may well have been good pasrents. Someone admitting that they feel sorry for the family of the shooter is nothing more then showing some level of decency and humanity. Your comments on the subject show off your tendencies to be an unintelligent ass.

What gets me is that the guy got the guns legally. If he wanted to make a point about gun control, he did it most effectively.

The thing is, though, the whole reason I support the second amendment is, and here's where politics enter in, because of administrations like the current one. I don't trust them not to decide that they've been playing nice with us long enough and now martial law will be enforced. With all the wiretapping and surveillance and general harassment of those civilians who disagree with them, I'm just a bit concerned. And no, with all due respect to those of you reading who are in law enforcement and in the military, I don't trust the police or the military blindly either.

Please, please don't misunderstand--I'm not suggesting that the populace rise up or anything similar. But I can see a lot of encroachments on civil liberties that...that really bother me. I worry less about some idiot trying to kill me than become a slave in a police state.

Brian C. Saunders's post up there reminded me of some of the truly stupid people I know with firearms. Like the one guy who fell asleep in a tree while hunting deer and he fell out. The rifle he had went off, shooting through his foot. Or the idiot who left a loaded pistol in the closet, told his 10-year old where it was, and then was amazed when the kid blew half his ear off. For those reasons, and several other mental Micronauts that I know, I'm pretty much against everyone being issued weapons at a given age. Heck, I see the things people do while driving, hate to imagine any of them armed.

I'm really curious to see if anything comes out of the parental abuse angle. I'd also like to know where this guy got the money for the weapons. If he got it from his parents, could they then be facing some kind of legal action or litigation? Is that any more plausible than the abuse leading to litigation?

I don't know that much will, or should, truly come of the possible parental abuse angle, at least from a legal standpoint. I know people who were abused as children and still turned out to be productive, even exemplary members of society. Then there are those whose parents, by all appearances, do everything "right," but still turn out to be wastes of material.

I, as well as others here, can attest to the fact that one can have parents who are understanding and supportive, yet still struggle with depression and other emotional issues.

Whether Cho was fundamentally "broken" in ways we can never know, or if he chose to give in to his rage, whatever the source, his parents did not pull the trigger, and it would be a tremendously dangerous precedent to allow them to be punished for the actions of their son.

-Rex Hondo-

6) That the whole thing was a Manchurian Candidate government conspiracy to draw attention away from the A.G. Gonzalez debacle.

When I checked the news on Tuesday to see what the results were of the planned meeting between Reid/Pelosi and Bush and saw that it hadn't happened because Bush was too busy talking about the shooting to have met with them on that day, I sort of wondered something like that. I certainly don't think the administration planned for it to happen, but it did serve as yet another distraction from what they are doing. Plus, apparently, they were only too happy to use it as an excuse to blow off the meeting with the Democratic leadership in favor of Bush taking the time to tell us what a tragedy it was (like we didn't already know that).

focusing on how to stop physical, mental, verbal, and sexual abuse of children would be more valuable then fighting about whether or not we need more gun control ...

Hell yes. I mean, if I had a choice between not being a victim of abuse from my peers and gun control laws, I would choose to not be a victim. It's always struck me as really strange that when you're an adult, you can take legal action against people for slander, or for harassment...but when you're a child, everybody is free to spread as many embarassing rumors about you as they wish, and they can harass you as much as they wish, without any consequences, even though that's the period of a person's life when these things do the most damage.
But it's not easy to stop abuse, and the next best thing is to ensure that if somebody is pushed over the edge, they don't have the tools to do very much harm. As for the people who were heartless enough to push them over the edge in the first place, one can only hope karma takes care of them.

Please explain, then, why Britain's crime rate [violent crime included] had shot up since they all but banned private ownership of weapons? Maybe it's as one criminal put it when interviewed in prison "well, if you've got a choice of where to commit a crime, where will you go? Somewhere where they can't defend themselves? Or someplace where you know they might shoot your head off?"

I have no idea why they have not put any effort into inventing a weapon that didn't kill people whenever it was used for "defense." There are stun guns and mace, yes, but you have to be very close to your attacker to use those things and I'm not sure if they're as easy to acquire as a handgun. As it is now, weak people such as elderly women appear to have only two options when they are crime victims: be completely helpless, or end their attacker's life with a bullet. Is there not some kind of middle ground we can provide them with?

Owning a gun is one thing. Owning an Uzi with armor-piercing bullets is not defense, it's offense, and offensive.

Exactly. There are people who have cried foul when others try to deprive them of the right to own guns LIKE THAT...they're allowed to own other kinds of guns, but not assault weapons. But they LOVES their assault weapons, and according to them they have a constitutional right to own Uzis, AK-47s, and the rest. What's wrong with them? I remember something about this on the Colbert Report a while ago...people were using assault rifles to shoot small animals I think, a writer for a gun magazine who was very much in favor of the right to bear arms opined that those kinds of weapons should be controlled, and people were outraged, and he was fired. What kind of insane society is this?

Rob Brown : "There are stun guns and mace, yes, but you have to be very close to your attacker to use those things and I'm not sure if they're as easy to acquire as a handgun."

Actually, owing to their status as less-then-lethal, they're far easier to acquire in many states. They certainly are in Virginia. Oh, you may have trouble getting the stuff that will turn a guys eyeballs into red hot pits of lava or a taser that will take down a charging bull, but you can pick up most anything under those categories with no great difficulties. Even the stuff that isn't supposed to be legal for sale seems to occasionally "accidentally" make it to someone's gun show sales table from time to time.

Barring in shop sales, you can get craploads of stuff off the web and have it overnighted to you.

And the effective range on some tasers is now around 25 feet.

You all sleep tight now.

I really hate the thinly veiled blame game I've seen in the media these last couple nights. Sometimes horrible things like this happen, and there really isn't anything that could have been done. It doesn't seem like there was a failure at any particular level, but that's what everyone is saying.

I've heard some media talking about evacuating the college, which is just ridiculous. It would be like evacuating a small city, most of which isn't anywhere near a TV or radio. It would be a complete mess and just make things worse. Installing a siren won't work, since those are typically just used for bad weather; everyone will think there's a tornado or something.

It should be noted, though, that the doors to the classrooms should have had locks. It doesn't sound like they did. That's just a basic security precaution all schools should have anyway.

Dear Mr. Myers,

Due to the nature of communicating this way, you may not understand the full impact of this next statement, but this needs to be said:
The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided.

Now we're done,

Robert Preston

And the effective range on some tasers is now around 25 feet.

WOW. I had no idea.

Well, that sounds like it'd be very effective for defense. I wonder why so many people still insist on using guns instead. Could it be a self-image thing?

Posted by: Robert Preston at April 19, 2007 03:35 AM

The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided.

I stand by what I wrote. Moreover, I have nothing to prove to you, and therefore am not taking your bait. Sorry. Better luck next time.

In the interests of turning my unproductive exchanges with Robert Preston into something productive: it's interesting how someone who claims to decry violence when it's committed by someone else threatens to resort to violence (and the "time and place" remark pretty clearly implied the threat of violence) when his own fragile psyche is under attack.

Robert Preston may not be the best example to use, because he's clearly a small man trying to use a loud voice to look bigger than he is. But I wonder... what is the line between the overwhelming majority of us and someone like Cho Seung-Hui?

Let me put it this way... they say Seung-Hui suffered from depression. So did I (actually, I'm still on medication for the condition but I haven't had an episode in over a decade). I've also read that Seung-Hui may have been abused, whereas I had a stable, loving family. If my circumstances were similar to Seung-Hui's, might I have snapped in a similar fashion?

I like to believe the answer is "no." As I've revealed in prior threads, depression and ADHD made for a very interesting childhood and adolescence for me. I was often isolated. And I worked hard to overcome the obstacles my conditions presented, to break out of my shell, to become more than I was. As a result, today I enjoy a loving relationship with my girlfriend, good friendships, and a terrific life. I'd like to think it's because of strength of character. I'd like to think that I'm not just a bad set of circumstances away from being another Cho Seung-Hui.

But none of us can really know who we'd be under another set of circumstances, can we? It's a humbling... and disturbing... thought.

And before Robert Preston or some other jackass accuses me of trying to "excuse" Cho Seung-Hui's horrific, evil actions, let me pre-empt this by saying: don't be an idiot. Had Cho Seung-Hui not killed himself, the only appropriate response would've been for the justice system to deal with him swiftly and severely, and to ensure that he could never harm another living soul again. Cho Seung-Hui was NOT the victim here.

Unfortunately, the human mind is as much a mystery as it ever was. Personality, free will, Soul, are simply not scientifically quantifiable.

But none of us can really know who we'd be under another set of circumstances, can we? It's a humbling... and disturbing... thought.

A few years ago, shortly after Columbine, a buddy of mine ran into one our old teachers. She told him that when she heard about Columbine, one of the first things she thought about was our particular group of friends. It was a sobering thought, since we were the outsiders, the ones who didn't quite fit in with any other group. It's comforting to try and believe that maybe our parents did something right. Or is it a group of six or seven, as opposed to two, aren't really loners any more and help bolster each other more? If my family hadn't moved when I was a child and I hadn't met that group of people, would I have gone down a darker path? Would one or more of them?

*shrug* Sorry I don't have any answers, or really anything much different to add from Bill M. I suppose this is one of those situations that just moves people to commiserate.

-The Ghost of Rex Hondo-

Posted by Jerry Chandler

I'll argee with most of your post, but even your post refutes the statement that the only thing you can do with a gun is shoot it. Sometimes you will. More times then not (outside of a war zone) you won't.

You won't. I won't. But the Bad Guy who wants all the money in the register and is quivering from adrenaline load so badly he's got about a 20% chance of missing you at contact range, or the "self-defense-comabat-shooter-gun-magazine-subscriber-Soldier-of-Fortune-jocksniffer" (the sort Preston sounds like) who's waving it around and planning to Save The Day - what about them?

And, as i said, if you pull the gun, order the Bad Guy to freeze, and he just looks at you and then starts walking away... what do you do?

I suppose what i ought to have said was "Assume that anyone who points a gun at you is ready to kill you - react accordingly."

The point about all you can do with a gun is to shoot it is that once the gun comes out, the level of force involved has been ratcheted to the max possible short of an actual shooting.

Most people will do what you tell them under the gun. Unless they think you're bluffing.

Oh - and another thing; an investigator of my acquaintance has said that even if you're under the gun, do anything you have to to *not* be taken to the secondary crime scene...

Posted by Sean Scullion

Brian C. Saunders's post up there reminded me of some of the truly stupid people I know with firearms. Like the one guy who fell asleep in a tree while hunting deer and he fell out.

Like the guy in Viet Nam who was on watch one night at the main gate to the base, got bored, and wound up with a neat burn straight down the outside of his leg and a chip off his ankle.

Playing "fast draw" with a military .45 and military holster is a Bad Idea.

Posted by Rob Brown

I have no idea why they have not put any effort into inventing a weapon that didn't kill people whenever it was used for "defense." There are stun guns and mace, yes, but you have to be very close to your attacker to use those things and I'm not sure if they're as easy to acquire as a handgun. As it is now, weak people such as elderly women appear to have only two options when they are crime victims: be completely helpless, or end their attacker's life with a bullet. Is there not some kind of middle ground we can provide them with?

Because it's essentially impossible to build such a thing. The probem that you run into is that something that's incapacitating but non-lethal at close range is not, as you've pointed out, going to be effective at longer range.

And something that's effective in that manner at long range may well be lethal at close range.

And even tazer-type "stun guns" and mace can be lethal, even when used correctly.

What we need is something like the SF "stun gun", which is non-lethal at any range (maybe you get some burns form close shots) and effective at a good long range, too. The sort of thing that, as Lois Bujold remarks in her book Comrades in Arms literally does let you shoot first and ask questions afterward...

Posted by Robert Preston

Dear Mr. Myers,

Due to the nature of communicating this way, you may not understand the full impact of this next statement, but this needs to be said:

The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided.

Stop by.

I won't call you a liar; i haven't seen any lies with my own eyes.

I suspect that the people who have called you a liar have misinterpreted the situation.

I think you're a barking moonbat with the personality of a peevish four-year-old who's squalling because no-body else will play right.

The near-unanimity of posters who have responded to you negatively is marvellous to behold around here; well-nigh unprecedented, i'd say.

Posted by Jerry Chandler

I'll argee with most of your post, but even your post refutes the statement that the only thing you can do with a gun is shoot it. Sometimes you will. More times then not (outside of a war zone) you won't.

You won't. I won't. But the Bad Guy who wants all the money in the register and is quivering from adrenaline load so badly he's got about a 20% chance of missing you at contact range, or the "self-defense-comabat-shooter-gun-magazine-subscriber-Soldier-of-Fortune-jocksniffer" (the sort Preston sounds like) who's waving it around and planning to Save The Day - what about them?

And, as i said, if you pull the gun, order the Bad Guy to freeze, and he just looks at you and then starts walking away... what do you do?

I suppose what i ought to have said was "Assume that anyone who points a gun at you is ready to kill you - react accordingly."

The point about all you can do with a gun is to shoot it is that once the gun comes out, the level of force involved has been ratcheted to the max possible short of an actual shooting.

Most people will do what you tell them under the gun. Unless they think you're bluffing.

Oh - and another thing; an investigator of my acquaintance has said that even if you're under the gun, do anything you have to to *not* be taken to the secondary crime scene...

Posted by Sean Scullion

Brian C. Saunders's post up there reminded me of some of the truly stupid people I know with firearms. Like the one guy who fell asleep in a tree while hunting deer and he fell out.

Like the guy in Viet Nam who was on watch one night at the main gate to the base, got bored, and wound up with a neat burn straight down the outside of his leg and a chip off his ankle.

Playing "fast draw" with a military .45 and military holster is a Bad Idea.

Posted by Rob Brown

I have no idea why they have not put any effort into inventing a weapon that didn't kill people whenever it was used for "defense." There are stun guns and mace, yes, but you have to be very close to your attacker to use those things and I'm not sure if they're as easy to acquire as a handgun. As it is now, weak people such as elderly women appear to have only two options when they are crime victims: be completely helpless, or end their attacker's life with a bullet. Is there not some kind of middle ground we can provide them with?

Because it's essentially impossible to build such a thing. The probem that you run into is that something that's incapacitating but non-lethal at close range is not, as you've pointed out, going to be effective at longer range.

And something that's effective in that manner at long range may well be lethal at close range.

And even tazer-type "stun guns" and mace can be lethal, even when used correctly.

What we need is something like the SF "stun gun", which is non-lethal at any range (maybe you get some burns form close shots) and effective at a good long range, too. The sort of thing that, as Lois Bujold remarks in her book Comrades in Arms literally does let you shoot first and ask questions afterward...

Posted by Robert Preston

Dear Mr. Myers,

Due to the nature of communicating this way, you may not understand the full impact of this next statement, but this needs to be said:

The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided.

Stop by.

I won't call you a liar; i haven't seen any lies with my own eyes.

I suspect that the people who have called you a liar have misinterpreted the situation.

I think you're a barking moonbat with the personality of a peevish four-year-old who's squalling because no-body else will play right.

The near-unanimity of posters who have responded to you negatively is marvellous to behold around here; well-nigh unprecedented, i'd say.

Posted by Jerry Chandler

I'll argee with most of your post, but even your post refutes the statement that the only thing you can do with a gun is shoot it. Sometimes you will. More times then not (outside of a war zone) you won't.

You won't. I won't. But the Bad Guy who wants all the money in the register and is quivering from adrenaline load so badly he's got about a 20% chance of missing you at contact range, or the "self-defense-comabat-shooter-gun-magazine-subscriber-Soldier-of-Fortune-jocksniffer" (the sort Preston sounds like) who's waving it around and planning to Save The Day - what about them?

And, as i said, if you pull the gun, order the Bad Guy to freeze, and he just looks at you and then starts walking away... what do you do?

I suppose what i ought to have said was "Assume that anyone who points a gun at you is ready to kill you - react accordingly."

The point about all you can do with a gun is to shoot it is that once the gun comes out, the level of force involved has been ratcheted to the max possible short of an actual shooting.

Most people will do what you tell them under the gun. Unless they think you're bluffing.

Oh - and another thing; an investigator of my acquaintance has said that even if you're under the gun, do anything you have to to *not* be taken to the secondary crime scene...

Posted by Sean Scullion

Brian C. Saunders's post up there reminded me of some of the truly stupid people I know with firearms. Like the one guy who fell asleep in a tree while hunting deer and he fell out.

Like the guy in Viet Nam who was on watch one night at the main gate to the base, got bored, and wound up with a neat burn straight down the outside of his leg and a chip off his ankle.

Playing "fast draw" with a military .45 and military holster is a Bad Idea.

Posted by Rob Brown

I have no idea why they have not put any effort into inventing a weapon that didn't kill people whenever it was used for "defense." There are stun guns and mace, yes, but you have to be very close to your attacker to use those things and I'm not sure if they're as easy to acquire as a handgun. As it is now, weak people such as elderly women appear to have only two options when they are crime victims: be completely helpless, or end their attacker's life with a bullet. Is there not some kind of middle ground we can provide them with?

Because it's essentially impossible to build such a thing. The probem that you run into is that something that's incapacitating but non-lethal at close range is not, as you've pointed out, going to be effective at longer range.

And something that's effective in that manner at long range may well be lethal at close range.

And even tazer-type "stun guns" and mace can be lethal, even when used correctly.

What we need is something like the SF "stun gun", which is non-lethal at any range (maybe you get some burns form close shots) and effective at a good long range, too. The sort of thing that, as Lois Bujold remarks in her book Comrades in Arms literally does let you shoot first and ask questions afterward...

Posted by Robert Preston

Dear Mr. Myers,

Due to the nature of communicating this way, you may not understand the full impact of this next statement, but this needs to be said:

The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided.

Stop by.

I won't call you a liar; i haven't seen any lies with my own eyes.

I suspect that the people who have called you a liar have misinterpreted the situation.

I think you're a barking moonbat with the personality of a peevish four-year-old who's squalling because no-body else will play right.

The near-unanimity of posters who have responded to you negatively is marvellous to behold around here; well-nigh unprecedented, i'd say.

>Find a gun in Wal-Mart that will "protect" you from a tank.

Pretty much any one of them. Or did you not see the news video some years back of the loon who borrowed a tank from a U.S. armoury and went driving through town? The little rampage was brought to a swift end when a cop climbed up the back of the tank, opened the hatch and used his sidearm to shoot the guy dead.

Failing that, I seem to recall the Soviets doing pretty well with their Molotov cocktails in WW II.

Not to pick nits, StarWolf, but that's all well and good against a lone nutbar in a tank, but I believe the original comment, as intended, would probably been better worded as, "Find a gun in Wal-Mart that will protect you from a modern tank fully manned by trained military personnel." The police officer you mentioned would have probably had a harder time of it if there had been somebody up top manning a 60 caliber machine gun, or even another armed loony inside to return fire.

Of course, it illustrates nicely:
A- There are some people who just shouldn't be trusted with modern weaponry.
B- The potential dangers of even a lone nutbar, if he's clever and determined enough.

-Rex Hondo-

Unless he told them what he was going to do with the money, no.

Maybe he was abused but it's at least as likely that he was just a monster. They are out there. Maybe it's through no real fault of their own or anyone elses.

Plus, apparently, they were only too happy to use it as an excuse to blow off the meeting with the Democratic leadership in favor of Bush taking the time to tell us what a tragedy it was (like we didn't already know that).

I though it was Bush who called for the meeting and, after initialy rejecting it, the Democrats accepted. Before making any political hay out of this answer this question: if it turns out that Nancy Pelosi cancelled the meeting or that it was a mutual decision will you still think it was a deliberate political ploy?

In a similar vein--Kucinich delayed his attempt to impeach Cheney for a week out of deference to the tragedy. Now, if Cheney's crimes are so great that he deserves impeachment why wait? Unless the whole thing is just for publicity and you don't want some mass killing taking away all your press time.

It's always struck me as really strange that when you're an adult, you can take legal action against people for slander, or for harassment...but when you're a child, everybody is free to spread as many embarassing rumors about you as they wish, and they can harass you as much as they wish, without any consequences, even though that's the period of a person's life when these things do the most damage.

You and me both, bro. I'm not for treating every fight as a federal event but when some kid gets jumped at school by 2 or more punks it's time to haul them off to the pokey. Which we actually do and, as an unsurprising result, we have relatively few jumpings. It's amazing how being led away in handcuffs does not look as cool to everyone else as some of these idiots think and the leason is learned quickly.

As it is now, weak people such as elderly women appear to have only two options when they are crime victims: be completely helpless, or end their attacker's life with a bullet. Is there not some kind of middle ground we can provide them with?

It's hard to do--there are rubber bullets and such but considering that even real bullets don't always do the trick and the average little old lady would be lucky to get off even one shot...I suppose you could have drug-tipped darts but I doubtthere is one dosage that would be effective against everyone.

What puzzles me is that things like tazers and even mace are often illegal in big cities...leaving one with few options and actually encouraging people to obtain illegal guns.

Actually, owing to their status as less-then-lethal, they're far easier to acquire in many states. They certainly are in Virginia. Oh, you may have trouble getting the stuff that will turn a guys eyeballs into red hot pits of lava or a taser that will take down a charging bull, but you can pick up most anything under those categories with no great difficulties.

Get the anti-bear pepper spray. It has a very far range and, as mentioned, is designed to scare off a frikken bear! It should nbe more than enough to take down your average crimianl, who, by and large, are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

I really hate the thinly veiled blame game

They are blaming the movie OLDBOY now. One of my favorites from the last 5 years. I've watched it several times now and haven't felt the urge to kill people with a claw hammer. At least, no more than usual.

Due to the nature of communicating this way, you may not understand the full impact of this next statement, but this needs to be said:
The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided.

Seriously, I don't think the pro-gun people would want you as a spokesman. I doubt anyone here sleeps better at night knowing you are well armed.

It's comforting, no doubt, to imagine yourself as a beacon of truth but in reality you have turned off everyone in this thread. One would almost suspect you are a plant, trying deliberately to make your position look bad but Occam's Razer tells us to take the simpler explanation--you are not very good at this whole discussing thing.

If PAD or Glenn choose to ban you for the implied threat above, please don't take it as any kind of victory on your part. A bully being kicked out of class hasn't achieved anything worth achieving.

This shooting involves a combination of variables -- upbringing, psychology, abuse, society, gun laws, campus security, etc. -- none of which alone is the cause. At the end all you can do is try to do better -- not perfect, better -- with each one of these variables, and you still have no guarentees. There are always going to be crazies out there, and you can never make laws, or security, or education, or a mental health system that's foolproof.

-------------------
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at April 18, 2007 10:10 PM
"I'd heard of a few cases where israeli sttlers shot back at palestinian terrorists--were they more easily granted guns because of where they were?"

Settlers can legally purchase guns and are also issued guns because of where they live. Unfortunatly, some settlers also fall under the category of crzy right wing. Some of the extreme settlements are a little like militia compounds in the US. So, the fact that they have guns is a point often played by the left in Israel.However, although I completely oppose the settlements and the settlers ideology, so long as they live where they live they are in danger and need guns.

------------------
Jerry, it is nice to hear praises for the Israeli police from somebody like you. It is also nice to hear that somebody in Israel is doing something right. It often feels as if nobody is doing anything right, and why can't we be more like other countries. Although, I suppose the grass is always greener....

----------------

"Posted by Robert Preston:

Due to the nature of communicating this way, you may not understand the full impact of this next statement, but this needs to be said:

The next time you call me a liar, have the courage to do it to my face. A time and place can be provided."

Bill Myers, since Mr. Preston made the challenge, you get to decide, pistols, sabers or rapiers? When you decide, send your valet to my mansion, and I'll send my valet to Mr. Preston's second with the exact terms.

Alternatively, you can joust for it. Just make sure to clean your armor.

Whom to ban is of course up to PAD, but I'm kinda hoping he doesn't give Bobby the satisfaction. The worst kind of punishment for little snots who scream in childish fits of petulance is to ignore them and walk away... thereby demonstrating to them that they are as insignificant and irrelevant as they fear.

Bobby's a troll. Not worth my time. Not worth addressing or even acknowledging.

Damn, that was easy. :)

Micha... doesn't he need to slap me with his glove first? ;)

For what it's worth, I lived in Switzerland for a year. During which time I lived in an apartment where the landlord lived on the bottom floor of the building with 5-6 apartments on floors above.

There was enough weaponry in that house; rifles, handguns, grenades, etc., to put some police stations to shame. And it was like that in every house where a Swiss citizen, at least male ones, lived (compulsory military service with yearly refreshers through age 50).

Offhand, I don't recall, if I ever knew, what the Swiss law about carrying weaponry was, but if any Swiss wanted weaponry, they would have it already in their home in substantial quantities.

The armed crime rate was very low.

So I'm not convinced it's just the presence of guns that does things. There's something cultural as well.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Preston quotes Robert A. Heinlein in saying, "An armed society is a polite society." As my memory isn't perfectly perfect right now (nor ever was...), I believe that was either in reference to "Red Planet" or "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress."

But the fact of the matter is that, I believe that this is a true statement - but it is a consequence of undesirable actions. Yes, a society that is armed becomes polite - because, being armed implies use of those firearms, and those who are not polite are removed from the populace by those who feel that they SHOULD be polite. After enough gun play has occurred, the remaining members of the society are indeed polite. Not soft, not weak, not tolerant - but polite.

Or, of course, the solution to the situation is literally imaginary and there ARE no survivors of the society - which is not impossible either.

However, arming everyone and then letting them work it out themselves, while probably effective, doesn't suggest to me a suitable answer (nor any way to assure population increase.) If one is rude to a lady, say, and gets ventilated for it, then that person will no longer be rude to ladies... and yet, there is a certain finality to that situation that may be hard to deal with.

Gun control, while possibly not the best solution either, does at least TRY to address the problem without decimating (or worse) the populace. And as getting rid of firearms is notoriously difficult - to quote Mr. Heinlein again, it is impossible to tuck the call back in a bugle - the current reality is that firearms exist, and there MUST be a way to deal with that fact.

This tragedy only points that out again... but so far, I've heard no adequate solutions. We can but hope that someday, someone will have one.

Until humans become racially mature, though, I'm not sure that arming everyone - and the corollary of them USING those firearms - is the right answer.

I remain,
Sincerely,

Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
xDISCUSSION: Mr. Preston quotes Robert A. Heinlein in saying, "An armed society is a polite society." As my memory isn't perfectly perfect right now (nor ever was...), I believe that was either in reference to "Red Planet" or "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress."

But the fact of the matter is that, I believe that this is a true statement - but it is a consequence of undesirable actions. Yes, a society that is armed becomes polite - because, being armed implies use of those firearms, and those who are not polite are removed from the populace by those who feel that they SHOULD be polite. After enough gun play has occurred, the remaining members of the society are indeed polite. Not soft, not weak, not tolerant - but polite.

Or, of course, the solution to the situation is literally imaginary and there ARE no survivors of the society - which is not impossible either.

However, arming everyone and then letting them work it out themselves, while probably effective, doesn't suggest to me a suitable answer (nor any way to assure population increase.) If one is rude to a lady, say, and gets ventilated for it, then that person will no longer be rude to ladies... and yet, there is a certain finality to that situation that may be hard to deal with.

Gun control, while possibly not the best solution either, does at least TRY to address the problem without decimating (or worse) the populace. And as getting rid of firearms is notoriously difficult - to quote Mr. Heinlein again, it is impossible to tuck the call back in a bugle - the current reality is that firearms exist, and there MUST be a way to deal with that fact.

This tragedy only points that out again... but so far, I've heard no adequate solutions. We can but hope that someday, someone will have one.

Until humans become racially mature, though, I'm not sure that arming everyone - and the corollary of them USING those firearms - is the right answer.

I remain,
Sincerely,

Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
DISCUSSION: Mr. Preston quotes Robert A. Heinlein in saying, "An armed society is a polite society." As my memory isn't perfectly perfect right now (nor ever was...), I believe that was either in reference to "Red Planet" or "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress."

But the fact of the matter is that, I believe that this is a true statement - but it is a consequence of undesirable actions. Yes, a society that is armed becomes polite - because, being armed implies use of those firearms, and those who are not polite are removed from the populace by those who feel that they SHOULD be polite. After enough gun play has occurred, the remaining members of the society are indeed polite. Not soft, not weak, not tolerant - but polite.

Or, of course, the solution to the situation is literally imaginary and there ARE no survivors of the society - which is not impossible either.

However, arming everyone and then letting them work it out themselves, while probably effective, doesn't suggest to me a suitable answer (nor any way to assure population increase.) If one is rude to a lady, say, and gets ventilated for it, then that person will no longer be rude to ladies... and yet, there is a certain finality to that situation that may be hard to deal with.

Gun control, while possibly not the best solution either, does at least TRY to address the problem without decimating (or worse) the populace. And as getting rid of firearms is notoriously difficult - to quote Mr. Heinlein again, it is impossible to tuck the call back in a bugle - the current reality is that firearms exist, and there MUST be a way to deal with that fact.

This tragedy only points that out again... but so far, I've heard no adequate solutions. We can but hope that someday, someone will have one.

Until humans become racially mature, though, I'm not sure that arming everyone - and the corollary of them USING those firearms - is the right answer.

I remain,
Sincerely,

Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
xDISCUSSION: Mr. Preston quotes Robert A. Heinlein in saying, "An armed society is a polite society." As my memory isn't perfectly perfect right now (nor ever was...), I believe that was either in reference to "Red Planet" or "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress."

But the fact of the matter is that, I believe that this is a true statement - but it is a consequence of undesirable actions. Yes, a society that is armed becomes polite - because, being armed implies use of those firearms, and those who are not polite are removed from the populace by those who feel that they SHOULD be polite. After enough gun play has occurred, the remaining members of the society are indeed polite. Not soft, not weak, not tolerant - but polite.

Or, of course, the solution to the situation is literally imaginary and there ARE no survivors of the society - which is not impossible either.

However, arming everyone and then letting them work it out themselves, while probably effective, doesn't suggest to me a suitable answer (nor any way to assure population increase.) If one is rude to a lady, say, and gets ventilated for it, then that person will no longer be rude to ladies... and yet, there is a certain finality to that situation that may be hard to deal with.

Gun control, while possibly not the best solution either, does at least TRY to address the problem without decimating (or worse) the populace. And as getting rid of firearms is notoriously difficult - to quote Mr. Heinlein again, it is impossible to tuck the call back in a bugle - the current reality is that firearms exist, and there MUST be a way to deal with that fact.

This tragedy only points that out again... but so far, I've heard no adequate solutions. We can but hope that someday, someone will have one.

Until humans become racially mature, though, I'm not sure that arming everyone - and the corollary of them USING those firearms - is the right answer.

I remain,
Sincerely,

Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey

Too bad for Imus this didn't happen last week... ;)

Gotta love the new media though. NBC running this loonie's video, reporting how the students who were actually at risk in Virginia Tech saying that their showing of the video is like "rubbing salt in our wounds" while RUNNING the video in the background!

Imus calls some basketball team that never even heard of him "nappy headed hos" is a failed attempt to use "street lingo" and look like less a dinosaur and the team goes on TV to whine about how this has "scarred" them for life, but NBC does this and who's head is rolling over this?

PAD said earlier:

""Imagine a society in which guns are forbidden. Nobody is allowed to own a gun.

Then, imagine a society in which the ownership of guns is mandatory. Everybody over a certain age is issued a handgun. EVERYBODY."

Which society will have more murders? Which society will have more accidental deaths?

The latter. Definitely. Without question.

PAD"

For the first few years, I agree, but after a huge spike in shootings, both accidental and intentional, society would adapt and the armed society would be much safer.

To answer all of the ridiculousness put forth here by such people as kurt, ZEEK, Tim Lynch, and Neil Ottenstein, to name a few, would take too much time.

Well that's the first time I've been put in THAT crowd- general conservative that I am.

Shame the dude took over this thread. It WAS interesting up till that point.

Not to belabor a dead horse... but I remain unconvinced that more gun control or less gun control would have made much of a difference here. This disturbed individual was bound and determined to hurt people and ultimately I think he would've found some way to do it, whether with guns, or homemade explosives, or a machete, or whatever. Granted, he may have been able to murder fewer people... but that's usually cold comfort to the loved ones of the unlucky few who are killed.

The gun control debate and discussions about U.S. culture are valid... I'm just not sure they're relevant to the Virginia Tech shootings. This young man was deeply disturbed, and driven by things unique to him. I know I'm repeating myself, but... I think we're grasping at straws in an attempt to regain a sense of control. But that sense of control is an illusion. Madmen do mad things... because they're mad. It's sad, it's tragic... but I don't think we can control it.

Question: An armed society, polite or brutal?

Answer: often both.

Look at history, you see societies in which life was cheap, and people would kill each other over insults. But the same societies develop very exact rules of etiquette.

------------
" think we're grasping at straws in an attempt to regain a sense of control. But that sense of control is an illusion. Madmen do mad things... because they're mad."

Yes and no. Easy access to guns is one of many variables in this tragedy. And dealing with it alone would not have prevented anything. It's possible that even dealing with alll the variables would not have prevented the tragedy. Yet addressing each one of these variables could make the general situation better and reduce the chances for such tragedies to occur. It's like being healthy. You never can be certaiin what will get you, but not smoking is a good idea.

I though it was Bush who called for the meeting and, after initialy rejecting it, the Democrats accepted. Before making any political hay out of this answer this question: if it turns out that Nancy Pelosi cancelled the meeting or that it was a mutual decision will you still think it was a deliberate political ploy?

As I understand it, Bush used his typical ploy offering the meeting, i.e., putting preconditions on the meeting so that it essentially became an excercise of him saying, "Let me tell you why you should give me everything I want at no cost to me."

I'm just thankful that this tragedy didn't happen during one of his many vacations so we were spared the spectacle of whether he should cut it short again (see: Katrina, Terri Schiavo).

In a similar vein--Kucinich delayed his attempt to impeach Cheney for a week out of deference to the tragedy. Now, if Cheney's crimes are so great that he deserves impeachment why wait? Unless the whole thing is just for publicity and you don't want some mass killing taking away all your press time.

Of course it's a publicity ploy. Any impeachment effort will die in the Senate given it's current makeup. That's a foregone conclusion. Kucinich is just desperate for attention.

But, in fairness, had he pressed forward on it this week, Fox "News" would have savaged him for being insensitive to the victims.

On the NBC issue: I was sickened that they aired those videos. I did watch a little bit of the Today Show this morning, and Matt Lauer went into a lengthy discussion about how people internally at NBC wrestled with the decision. I think that's bull. Cho was obviously disturbed and this airing has given other disturbed people that this is a great way to be remembered forever.

Not to belabor a dead horse... but I remain unconvinced that more gun control or less gun control would have made much of a difference here. This disturbed individual was bound and determined to hurt people and ultimately I think he would've found some way to do it, whether with guns, or homemade explosives, or a machete, or whatever. Granted, he may have been able to murder fewer people... but that's usually cold comfort to the loved ones of the unlucky few who are killed.
*************
SER: I agree with you, Bill *however* I think that guns make it easier for lunatics to kill a large amount of people before they themselves are killed. Explosives require some degree of intelligence (though you can look up how to make them on the Internet these days).

And this is not an insult against the mentally ill but I really think a history of mental illness (as well as having been institutionalized) should show up in a background check and perhaps should require a mental health physician signing off on the fact that it's OK for this person to own a gun. I mean, even if he wasn't going to kill others, what if he had just killed himself (a la Kurt Cobain). Giving weapons to potentially suicidal people just strikes me as insanity.

This should be a wake-up call for our country but I can almost see The Onion headline: GUN LAWS UPHELD; SCREENPLAYS BANNED

Is anyone else really frustrated that the shooters always die at the end of these sorts of rampages? We never get to see them really face justice. It reminds me of the Punisher and just how unsatisfying that sort of "justice" can be.

We never get to see them really face justice.

That depends on your view of justice.

Timothy McVeigh faced justice, and in the end, what justice can you really give somebody who had killed so many? Their single death does not balance the scales, as it were.

Yes, cold comfort, but the fact that this guy, Cho, is dead, is for the best. Now, if only NBC hadn't shown those god damn videos to further give him his '15 minutes'.

Well, there's the McVeigh justice...which cost the taxpayers how many millions of $?

For certain spiritually inclined folks, what Cho's facing right now is far, far worse than anything that could possibly have been inflicted on him while alive. And it costs us nothing more than we've already paid...too dear a price any way you look at it.

It's hard to say that this is truly seeking justice. It seems more like a desire for veangeance.

Bill's post up there about the gun control debate and whether or not it's relevant to this event reminds me of something I thought a long time ago. If someone's going to commit a crime, and they're REALLY determined to do it, they're not going to care WHERE they get the gun from. It's not like the potential criminal is going to say, "Ya know, I could get in a lot of trouble for this, but maybe if I get the gun legally, it won't be so bad." If you want it bad enough, there'll be someone who'll be more than willing to get it to you.

Micha--why did you tell Bill to clean his armor? Are you implying that he's Brave Sir Robin?

Alex, I'm not frustrated that the shooters tend to die. I'm frustrated at the fact that the shooters needs beforehand, before they become shooters, aren't met, and when that happens, lots of people die.

Seriously. $10,000 is all he could afford? Is that all he had in his wallet when they asked or what?

Former QB Vick makes donation for victims families
Associated Press

ATLANTA -- Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has teamed up with the United Way to donate $10,000 to assist families affected by the massacre at Virginia Tech, his former school.
"When tragic things like this happen, families have enough to deal with, and if I can help in some small way, that's the least I can do," said Vick, who played for the Hokies before being drafted No. 1 overall by the Falcons in 2001.
The Vick Foundation is collecting donations from local communities in both Atlanta and Virginia that will be placed in the United In Caring Fund for Victims of the VA Tech Tragedy and the special fund at the United Way of Montgomery, Radford and Floyd counties, which serves the Virginia Tech area.
Vick's foundation said the money will be used to provide help with funeral expenses, transportation for family members and other support services.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

Falcons quarterback Michael Vick signs richest
NFL deal in history
Jet, Jan 17, 2005

Michael Vick recently became the richest player in the NFL by agreeing to call Atlanta home for the next decade.

The Falcons' star quarterback signed a 10-year; $130 million contract extension that guarantees him an NFL-record $37 million in bonuses, and he wants to prove he's worth every penny.

"The only thing that matters is winning football games. It's not about being the highest-paid guy in the NFL because that doesn't mean anything if you don't win football games," the 24-year-old Vick said. "A lot of guys come into the league, they bounce around and never really find a home. But I'm very excited to know that I'll be here and have an opportunity to bring a Super Bowl to this city."

Vick's deal surpasses the $98 million contract Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning signed last March. Manning, who signed for seven years, is guaranteed $34.5 million in bonuses. Vick's $130 million in potential value tops Philadelphia QB Donovan McNabb's 12-year, $115 million deal that runs through 2013.

Um, I'd be obliged if someone could remove the three copies of my post duplicated along with the original... danged if I know how that got in there! Many thanks...

ELS

Since I'm not giving anything, I'm not going to criticize anyone's attempt to help out right now. Vick doesn't have to give anything. The fact that he's not giving what you think he should give really shouldn't matter.

Specifically, Bobb, my complaint is that this is SUCH a PR move on his part that it's insulting to those of us who really do care and want to help the victims and their families. $10,000.00? Isn't that what he annually spends on BenGay?

Some people may claim I'm throwing the train off the tracks, but an earlier post mentioned "Saw 3."

Whenever these incidents occur, the second that someone even sideways glances at violence in movies and TV, there's a chorus of "First Amendment" and "It's only a parody" and "Chopping up a screaming girl is a justifiable artistic expression." With the unspoken assertion "Besides, it's just fun."

I happen to have PTSD thanks to a knifepoint robbery about a decade ago. I am very sensitive to violence, gore and sadism in movies, and avoid it when I can. Many consider me a wimp and a loser (and of course a faggot) because I can't watch the "Chiller" channel or revel in Freddy Krueger's latest slaughter.

Then something like this happens and the guys with the gory movies start tip-toeing.

Yes, a movie didn't "cause" these murders, and censorship is no solution. But when these movies make heroes out of murderers, and makes the people trying to stop the slaughter buffoons and losers...well, what kind of message do these guys go home with? What kind of social values do people seek in these films? Forget the children who are probably not allowed in these films - why are adults hungry for this soul-destroying crap?

We as a people are pretty damned pathetic, and in a state of denial about it.

Thomas, I do think that slasher films appeal to the visceral thrill and adrenaline rush that people get from being scared. There's always going to be people who produce entertainment that you or I find objectionable. The answer is to not support it. Don't watch it. Don't read it. Don't listen to it.

That's not to minimize what you suffer from with PTSD, but it is realistic. If we as a society allow everyone to block what they find objectionable, then there will be no entertainment at all.

$10k isn't a drop in the bucket, it's more than most of us would be able to shell out, and, most important, it's better than him sitting back and doing nothing.

I'm not much of a Vick fan, but, sheesh, some people can't win, and others can never be happy.

$10,000.00 IS a drop in the bucket for him. He was guaranteed $37 MILLION. 10 thou is .0002702% of $37 Mill. I make about $36,000 per year. $34,000 x .0002702 is $9.73. Where do I mail that and who do I tell in order to get my name in the paper for doing so?

BBayliss, I think you're being petty and missing the point. If you've got a grudge against Vick for some reason, you might find a more receptive audience somewhere else.

I don't really think Vick cares at all that he got his name in the paper over this. I think he's Mike Vick, and there's some paper somewhere that reports when he sneezes. If you were one of the best football players in the world, you'd have a reported following you around too, ready to stick a mic in your face after coming our of the United Way office and asking you what you were doing.

If you really want to get your name in the paper for matching the % of Vick's salary with your own, I'm sure there's someone that'd be happy to oblige you.

Yes, a movie didn't "cause" these murders, and censorship is no solution. But when these movies make heroes out of murderers, and makes the people trying to stop the slaughter buffoons and losers...well, what kind of message do these guys go home with?

Thomas, I think the movies are just the symptoms of a societal disease (or unneasy). They're not the cause, they're certainly not the disease itself.

There is a huge difference between the social mood in the 1980s, when people were afraid of Freddy Krueger and Jason, and the 1990s, when people were cheering for them (and for Hannibal Lector, and for the Natural Born Killers...)

So I'd say it's not Freddy or Jason that are to blame. There are major societal trends that cause a sort of "hero" to be more or less appealing to audiences.

I have NO grudge against Michael Vick. I have no opinion of him one way or the other, other than he's probably the best rushing QB since Randall Cunningham. I wouldn't care if this was Michael Vick, Bernie Kosar, Mike Ditka or AJ Hawk making this small of a donation. My anger would be the same.

Again, Bobb, my point is that this is a STAGED PR event. He could have anonymously donated it. He could have mailed them a check but no, his PR handlers called the media, said "Hey, we have a feel good VT massacre-related story for you involving one of the NFL superstars!"

So your next logical question would be what do I think is the appropriate donation? I've always felt the 5% tithing is a nice number. 10% if you are financially well off.

Me: "And the effective range on some tasers is now around 25 feet."
Rob Brown: "WOW. I had no idea.

Well, that sounds like it'd be very effective for defense. I wonder why so many people still insist on using guns instead. Could it be a self-image thing?"

Mind you, I am talking about a taser and not a stun gun. A taser is shaped like a gun and has a small cartridge on the end that contains two tiny barbed spears and metal wire to conduct the electricity from the taser to the target. You are limited to one target per cartridge and thus limited by the number of spare cartridges you have insofar as how many targets you can tag. If you have to, you can pull the cartridge off the taser and the taser is then converted into a direct contact stun gun.

You're also limited by the fact that even the best taser only locks someone's body up for as long as you're allowing the charge to go into the subject. One taser with multiple subjects isn't a good thing. In order to tag the second person, you're letting the first person back into the fight. Stun guns suck because they need direct contact with an individual. You're letting someone get close enough to you to touch you before you hit them. And, contrary to the name, they don't stun people in the way that movies and TV depict. As soon as contact with a taser or stun gun is done, a subject can start immediately fighting again.

We like tasers as a less then lethal device when dealing with single subjects or when we have multiple tasers in the hands of multiple officers, but they are far from being a good primary tool.

Mike Weber: "I suppose what i ought to have said was "Assume that anyone who points a gun at you is ready to kill you - react accordingly.""

Handshake on that one.

Mike Weber: "I suspect that the people who have called you a liar have misinterpreted the situation."

No, that's a spillover from another thread. He made a few statements that he then backtracked on. But rather then being a man about it and just apologizing for his insults, he "apologized" and then went on to lie about what he really said and meant both then and in a post on this thread. His remarks that were "about politics" that got him such heat before were personal insults about how none of the cowardly people posting their criticisms of the Iraq war here would ever have the guts to risk their own lives to save the live of others. He got called on it, played silly games about it and showed his true colors. He also has a reality problem. He bleated on in the other thread about facts, but he wouldn't address posts that dealt factual blows to his "facts". He just responded to insults while talking about there being no facts presented by the other side or posting that the posters putting forth fact based posts weren't worth his responding to because of their "problems" and such. Short version: He's a troll by accident of stupidity rather then by design of desire.

Micha: "Jerry, it is nice to hear praises for the Israeli police from somebody like you. It is also nice to hear that somebody in Israel is doing something right. It often feels as if nobody is doing anything right, and why can't we be more like other countries. Although, I suppose the grass is always greener...."

Hey, those guys were just flat out good. No two ways about it.

Micha: "Bill Myers, since Mr. Preston made the challenge, you get to decide, pistols, sabers or rapiers?"

How about rappers instead? Myers and Preston doing their best Vanilla Ice impersonations at twenty paces. Anybody got a good video camera and some ear plugs?

Frankly, anybody who talks about the philanthropy of others generally don't know what the hell they're talking about, unless they're fundraising professionals.

There is a huge difference between the social mood in the 1980s, when people were afraid of Freddy Krueger and Jason, and the 1990s, when people were cheering for them (and for Hannibal Lector, and for the Natural Born Killers...)

So I'd say it's not Freddy or Jason that are to blame. There are major societal trends that cause a sort of "hero" to be more or less appealing to audiences.

*************
SER: Agreed. However, the anti-hero has been popular for decades -- even during the '40s and the '50s.

Yes, cold comfort, but the fact that this guy, Cho, is dead, is for the best. Now, if only NBC hadn't shown those god damn videos to further give him his '15 minutes'.
*************
SER: Agreed. I don't give a damn about this coward and prefer he vanished into obscurity. The news should be devoted to telling the stories of the victims and the lives that were senselessly cut short.

There is nothing to learn about this guy other than that "mean people suck." I don't care about his screenplays. Instead, post the screenplay of one of the kids he killed... and so on. Write books and make movies about each one of the victims rather than giving this loser the attention he so desperately wanted.

As I said, BBayliss, Vick cannot win.

If he donates anonymously, people wonder why he's not out there doing something publicly, since he is probably the most famous VTech alum around right now.

But since he did do it publicly, he gets to put up with comments like yours, instead of people just recognizing the fact that he did SOMETHING positive.

Which leads one to wonder: why bother doing anything positive when you're just going to be given shit for it?

The videos NBC has released are sickening and are just further twisting a knife into the hearts of the bereaved. They should've just turned them over to the FBI and been done with it.

He's a private citizen off the football field, I don't care if he donates or doesn't donate. You may be correct in saying someone people would be upset if he DIDN'T make a donation as a prominent VT grad, but I don't represent that mindset.

To recap, my complaint is twofold: One, that, again, this was a STAGED PR event. DOn't do something like this and say "HEY!! LOOK AT ME, I MADE A DONATION!" and then only donate $10.00.

Two, how much inproportionate media exposure is he going to be given on ESPN, newspapers, etc. The media would be better off using that alotted time to present stories of the victims.

Bill Myers: Matt Lauer sure had an opinion about that this morning on the Today show. It seemed as though every other question to his guests was: "Should we (NBC) have aired this video?"

"I have NO grudge against Michael Vick. I have no opinion of him one way or the other, other than he's probably the best rushing QB since Randall Cunningham. I wouldn't care if this was Michael Vick, Bernie Kosar, Mike Ditka or AJ Hawk making this small of a donation. My anger would be the same.

Again, Bobb, my point is that this is a STAGED PR event. He could have anonymously donated it. He could have mailed them a check but no, his PR handlers called the media, said "Hey, we have a feel good VT massacre-related story for you involving one of the NFL superstars!"

So your next logical question would be what do I think is the appropriate donation? I've always felt the 5% tithing is a nice number. 10% if you are financially well off."

We're not talking about what an appropriate tip to leave your waitress here. I didn't realize there was a Miss Manners rule for donating money to people who's children have just been gunned down in the worst US shooting ever.

All I know of Vick's donation is this: It's for $10,000, it's in cooperatio with The United Way, and it's for the families of the victims. I don't know that his PR people called anyone to announce it. I do know he made some comments on it. Not to surprising, as it's been said and I agree, he's maybe the best rushing QB playing today, and could be one of the best of all time if things go well for him.

Insulting? To who, other tha BBayliss? Are the families that are going to get this money insulted? Are they going to feel so affronted that Mr. Moneybags...under no obligation whatsoever to lend a hand in the first place...didn't lend a bigger hand?

Whatever. At least Vicki's doing something, other than flapping his internet lips about how other people aren't doing anything or enough.

Truly, I agree with Craig on this: if this is the reaction you get when all you're trying to do is help out, why bother? So next time we have a big tragedy, and no rich and famous folks step up to help, I hope we don't see BBayliss leading the charge calling for them to do something.

For those interested, here's the yahoo news blurb on Vick's actions:

"ATLANTA (AP) -- Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has teamed up with the United Way to donate $10,000 to assist families affected by the massacre at Virginia Tech, his former school.

"When tragic things like this happen, families have enough to deal with, and if I can help in some small way, that's the least I can do," said Vick, who played for the Hokies before being drafted No. 1 overall by the Falcons in 2001.

The Vick Foundation is collecting donations from local communities in both Atlanta and Virginia that will be placed in the United In Caring Fund for Victims of the VA Tech Tragedy and the special fund at the United Way of Montgomery, Radford and Floyd counties, which serves the Virginia Tech area.

Vick's foundation said the money will be used to provide help with funeral expenses, transportation for family members and other support services."

So is it PR? Sure...for his freaking foundation that's set up to help other people. Like in this instance,to help with funeral expenses. Which can easily run past $10K, and most people probably don't have enough life insurance out on their kids to pay those expenses, if they even have life insurance for their kids.

And if he's collecting funds, chances are he'll get far more than $10,000.

Watching Lauer this morning on the Today show I thought of the early line by Crow in Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie:

"I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid, and...I went ahead anyway."

Timothy McVeigh faced justice, and in the end, what justice can you really give somebody who had killed so many? Their single death does not balance the scales, as it were.

I found the discussion of McVeigh's fate revealed something interesting about the attitude toward capital punishment in the US. I was listening to a lot of NPR talk radio at the time, and there was a striking pattern to the opinions: Callers who normally opposed capital punishment tended to feel that if it was ever justified, it was in this case . Callers who normally supported capital punishment tended to feel that it shouldn't be used on McVeigh...because it wasn't severe enough, and life in prison (presumably under suitably harsh conditions) would be more fitting.

I don't know if that Means Something or what (or if NPR's screening process tended to weed out the real extremists). I think it does highlight something about the nature of justice: that it's based on perception, not some hard equation where justice exists if the two sides more or less balance. (I'm reasonably sure this plays into many people's perception of the insanity plea, for that matter.)

I live in Hartselle Alabama (small town). After everything that has happened at VT this week, yesterday I receive word from my son that his High School is on lockdown because someone has posted on their myspace account that they are going to go to the school and make it look like Columbine (along with a few expletives). My first thought after worry for my children was "here we go with the copycat situations" and who would be so sick as to post this at this time thinking it makes them look Big? Then the scary reality set in last night when the local news informed everyone that the posting had been created Monday, even before VT, by a disgruntled student that had been expelled for some pretty troubling issues and was now living in South Carolina. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone involved in the tragedy at VT. I guess what I am trying to say is that this kind of thing can happen anywhere and that life is too short not to tell your loved ones how much you care about them. Let's just keep that in the back of our minds as we try to make sense of this situation.
James

James, that is scary as hell. It sounds like the authorities caught this in time, but God damn that is too close for comfort.

All the best to you and your family. Stay safe.

James,

Damn.

You guys in the Hartselle area have had a hell of a year. I Googled...

Hartselle Alabama school lockdown

... and a few variations of that and got lots of stories for different incidents from the last few months. As much as it was causing problems before, it's got to be hitting a lot of the people involved in the prior scares pretty hard in the gut right now over what could have been.

Stay safe and take care of your family.

I found the discussion of McVeigh's fate revealed something interesting about the attitude toward capital punishment in the US. I was listening to a lot of NPR talk radio at the time, and there was a striking pattern to the opinions: Callers who normally opposed capital punishment tended to feel that if it was ever justified, it was in this case . Callers who normally supported capital punishment tended to feel that it shouldn't be used on McVeigh...because it wasn't severe enough, and life in prison (presumably under suitably harsh conditions) would be more fitting.

*********************

SER: I'm an atheist and believe life in prison is far too humane for murderers. They basically get to continue doing what their victims cannot: Seeing the sunrise, reading a good book, listening to music, and so on.

If I were religious, I would oppose the death penalty because I would have faith in a true justice after death -- as an atheist, I don't have that option. McVeigh and Mother Theresa all wind up in the same place.

5) An upswing in incidents of students who write essays/poems/short stories themed around violence suddenly finding themselves tagged as potential shooters and being suspended or expelled.

This is the one that scares me in opposite directions.

Having been a young, fledgling writer myself and having known very many of them, I know that kids LOVE to go all out with violence, sex, bad behavior, and anything else that will piss off people because they're testing themselves and going off of the things they see in the media. (Curious observation: The really nasty stuff comes from otherwise nice and happy girls!)

I'm afraid for these kids because even though they need to and will learn to temper their works, far too many will be wrongly accused of being monsters when they're just testing themselves. If we let kids and young adults get punished for exploring their dark sides, even when they go too far creatively, we'll destroy the sparks of those who could be our great creative minds.

But, on the other hand, I have reached the point where if someone is writing nasty, violent, sicko stuff AND is displaying other signs of mental illness like having few friends, scaring people outside of fiction, etc like the shooter did then I don't want those people walking on the street. I think that if someone is showing the signs of committing these types of acts (not just one sign but multiple and obvious signs) then they should be committed. I know this could turn bad very badly with innocent people being institutionalized and drugged, but it's something we should think about. Perhaps from that idea we come up with a more concrete plan to identify these types of people and stop them, or perhaps even save them, before they go on a rampage.

James--
if I was there I'd be scared as hell. Take care of yourself snd your family. Keep you eyes open.

Everybody else, do the same wherever you are.

If I were religious, I would oppose the death penalty because I would have faith in a true justice after death -- as an atheist, I don't have that option. McVeigh and Mother Theresa all wind up in the same place.

Interesting. I'm also an atheist and my reasoning is precisely the opposite; if an innocent person gets executed wrongly and there's an afterlife, then they get all eternity to get the mistake made up to them. Since I don't think there is (and since I don't think true justice is something fallible humanity is capable of achieving or even inarguably defining), taking an irreversible action that could be wrong just has the potential to create further injustice--and with no takebacks.

Of course, this is a textbook example of how what appear to be polar opposite views are actually views on two related but different topics...

>>And, as I said before, I have no idea why it's important to know how many of the students fought back before they were shot. This was not a video game or a Rambo movies. It was not an opportunity for people who were not there to live out some kind of macho fantasy. It was real people who were facing an ambush from an armed assailant.

My god... If someone has to explain WHY you fight back in a situation like this, then just take yourself out of this discussion. It is Fight or Flight Instinct. Your obviously a Flight person, which isn't all that bad, you apparently are just the type of person that needs someone to fight for them.

It's not a "Macho thing". It's a life or death thing, and sometimes, you have to fight to live. If you hide, well... dont make the fighters seem like braindead primates.

Thanks for the kind comments, but I know how to handle my PTSD, by avoiding stuff that sets it off. My earlier post was my wondering about the people who deliberatly subject themselves to that kind of entertainment.

I recall a book about film noir, Dark City,, referring to Dirty Harry Callahan as "hate franchised as heroism." It applies even more to the Saw movies and this weekend's film thrillers, Disturbia and Vacancy. And as a result, the many victims killed in these movies - conventional people that the audience can identify with - are declared worthless. People who deserve to die. It's like a documentary about Buchenwald where the SS are the heroes, and everyone who attends gets a little plastic gas chamber to take home.

What kind of mindset do you have to possess to pay money to be told you're worthless? I mean, I can see it in most organized religions, but in entertainment?

My god... If someone has to explain WHY you fight back in a situation like this, then just take yourself out of this discussion.

I understand what the "fight or flight" impulse is. What I don't understand why a cowardly jackass like "Robert Preston" feels the need to pass judgment on a situation where he was not there by counting the number of fighters and thereby, denigrating those that choose "flight".

I think it's tasteless in the extreme to hide behind your keyboard and talk about how if only you were there, you (or your son) would have been the one who bravely rushed the gunman and disarmed him.

"So I'm not convinced it's just the presence of guns that does things. There's something cultural as well."

That's for sure. D.C. has the highest murder rate in the country, and the strictest gun control laws. The guns per capita are extremely low, yet the murders keep happening. Montana has the highest gun per capita rate in the country, and increadily low murder stats.

Murder and other violent crimes are economic and cultural issues. Last time I checked Jack the Ripper didn't use a gun to disembowell the hookers. People who want to kill will always kill.

When all is said and done, monsters are monsters. This kid was a monster. You want to try to understand what would cause him to do this? Fine, because it's good to look at long term societal health. But I don't need to think hard to figure out who or what to blame this horrible tragedy on, and it's one person (hint, it's not Bill Clinton or W. Bush).

"It's not a "Macho thing". It's a life or death thing, and sometimes, you have to fight to live. If you hide, well... dont make the fighters seem like braindead primates. "

No one really is. But no one should talk garbage about the victims either. The thing that the Robert Prestons of the world don't get is that their steady diet of Die Hard movie marathon nights and a bit of time playing on the firing range means jack s**t when real life slaps you in the face.

No one can say what they will do in a situation like they had at Tech. No one. Anyone who claims to know 100% what they would do is a fool or a liar.

"Your obviously a Flight person, which isn't all that bad, you apparently are just the type of person that needs someone to fight for them."

Come back and dish out the insults once you've been in a situation like that. Until then, you're talking out your backside.

Oh, and check this out. Adds some stuff to how and why he got his guns.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/

>>Come back and dish out the insults once you've been in a situation like that. Until then, you're talking out your backside.

Well Jerry, unfortunately for your pitch, I HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY THREATENED WITH A GUN BEFORE. I simply reacted physically by punching the mugger in the throat because he was so close and drove the person away from me and my friend. The gun may not have been loaded, but when it's sticking in your face, you should think differently when a finger twitch could end your life.

So, guys like you can guess who they "might" react in a life or death situation, I know how I will react. I'm sure this will be followed up calling my physical reaction "reckless, stupid, not thinking of worse case scenarios, ect." but we both walked away unharmed and with our money in our wallets. And this isn't the only time I had fight or flight save my life of another, my instincts also saved myself and a roommate when my house was on fire and we had to get out not knowing how bad the fire was.

I'm not talking Smack, I just get disappointed when people would rather curl up then lash out. Fighting back, defending yourself, and others should be a natural instinct, and it shouldn't be frowned upon as your trying to emulate a friggin movie, at least as some people see it. I can certainly admit that Die Hard or Rambo action films were the last things on my mind.

Posted by: Nivek at April 20, 2007 12:13 AM

My god... If someone has to explain WHY you fight back in a situation like this, then just take yourself out of this discussion.

Consider this an "open letter" to Robert Preston, Nivek, and anyone else who is tempted to join them in pissing all over the memories of the victims of this massacre:

SHUT. THE FUCK. UP.

I mean it. Just SHUT your FUCKING MOUTHS.

There are plenty of things that are fair game for discussion here: gun control, campus security, mental illness, U.S. culture. But to imply that the victims of this massacre were cowards if they fled for their lives? That betrays a level of stupidity and infantile self-absorption that is beyond the pale.

People are mourning. Do you get that? PEOPLE. ARE. MOURNING!!!!!!!!!!!! Actual human beings. Not characters in an action movie.

Robert Preston is likely to threaten me again, but this has to be said: anyone... ANYONE... who implies that the victims who fled were cowards is a coward him or herself. I've known people who have been in real life-threatening situations, like cops and soliders, and NONE of them would EVER speak like that.

To everyone else: I'm sorry for any disruption this may cause but I am LIVID at the lack of decency some people are demonstrating. People fucking DIED in this massacre and other people's hearts are bleeding with grief. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that there are people out there who are so desperate to pretend that they're something they're not that they would DARE piss on the memories of these victims.

Posted by: Nivek at April 20, 2007 12:13 AM

My god... If someone has to explain WHY you fight back in a situation like this, then just take yourself out of this discussion.

Consider this an "open letter" to Robert Preston, Nivek, and anyone else who is tempted to join them in pissing all over the memories of the victims of this massacre:

SHUT. UP.

I mean it. Just SHUT your MOUTHS.

There are plenty of things that are fair game for discussion here: gun control, campus security, mental illness, U.S. culture. But to imply that the victims of this massacre were cowards if they fled for their lives? That betrays a level of stupidity and infantile self-absorption that is beyond the pale.

People are mourning. Do you get that? PEOPLE. ARE. MOURNING!!!!!!!!!!!! Actual human beings. Not characters in an action movie.

No one... NO ONE... has the right to imply that anyone who fled this rampage was a coward. I've known people who have been in real life-threatening situations, like cops and soliders, and NONE of them would EVER speak like that.

To everyone else: I'm sorry for any disruption this may cause but I am LIVID at the lack of decency some people are demonstrating. People DIED in this massacre and other people's hearts are bleeding with grief. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that there are people out there who would DARE piss on the memories of these victims.

Nivek, just read your response, and my message to you remains the same:

SHUT. YOUR. MOUTH.

Don't care that you claim to be some kind of Steve Seagal type of badass. Don't care if you've punched an armed mugger. This is a time for MOURNING, not a time for second-guessing and criticizing innocent victims. Any decent individual would recongize that. If you can't... then you have some soul-seraching to do.

You know, as soon as I hit the submit button on my last two posts, I realized what a mistake I'd made.

Because those posts will do nothing more than trigger more trash-talking from the Robert Prestons and Niveks of this world. They won't back down. They'll just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole. And as a result, I'll be responsible for provoking them into saying things that are hurtful to anyone who lost a loved one in this massacre.

So, to everyone who is not Robert Preston and Nivek, I apologize for acting in anger without regard for the consequences of my actions. I will let this be my last word on the subject, in hopes that I will at the very least be removing a small amount of fuel from the fire.

Nivek,

Surely it's a situational thing though. If the person with the gun is 20 feet away and shooting people at random then hiding and running away become better options because if he can't see you he can't shoot you and the chances of you bared handed being able to do anything effective at that distance is remote and may actually make you a target where you wheren't one before.

Fight or flight is all about survival and the choice you make should be the one that gives you the best chance for that. So depending on the situation neither one is necessarily right or wrong, you just have choose the best one and hope you make the best choice to allow you and others go on living.

How many of the victims had the kind of training or upbringing to deal in the "fight" mode when faced with a madman weilding two pistols and having shown that he knows how to use them and a willingness to use them?

How close did this lunatic let people get before he shot them?

Let's see, run all the way across the room at a guy with guns, or try to get out of the line of fire? Hmmm... can you run faster than a bullet to get to him before his bullets kill you? I doubt it.

Your mugger situation and this one are completely different. The mugger was stupid enough to get into physical range, and he didn't want to kill you, he just wanted your money.

The VA Tech Lunatic didn't want people close to him, and he didn't want anyone's wallet, he just wanted to KILL. You'd be a dead man if you'd been there.

I'll leave it to your imagination, Cowboy Nivek...

That's for sure. D.C. has the highest murder rate in the country, and the strictest gun control laws. The guns per capita are extremely low, yet the murders keep happening. Montana has the highest gun per capita rate in the country, and increadily low murder stats.

I've always figured that population density was a factor there. The more people you squeeze into an area, the more likely they are to rub each other the wrong way, it's harder to get away from people altogether, and there's more chance of being close to somebody who deals with it lethally. Montana has the lowest population density of any US state (6.19/square mile); if DC were a state it would have the highest (9,015/square mile). That has to be a significant factor in the relative crime rates.

(I agree culture plays a part as well. Japan has a high population density as well--Tokyo's is half again as high as DC's--and a mass media at least as violent as the US's, but they have a much lower crime rate. They also have a culture that places much more emphasis on fitting in, while the value US culture places on individualism sometimes expresses itself as selfishness and belligerence. That has to be a factor as well.)

Here's the thing that Nivek, Robert Preston, and others who believe that they are superior to the VT shooting victims fail to understand:

They. Weren't. There.

Was there an opportunity to rush the shooter while he was running through the halls shooting randomly? I don't know. You don't know. No one in this form knows. To pass judgment on multiple shooting victims based on an AP article you read is the mark of a jackass.

I don't know if Nivek's story about punching a mugger is true or not. And I don't care. Every situation involving guns is different. Sometimes, fighting may be a viable option. Sometimes flight is the better choice.

Anyone who sits there safely typing away and claims to know how the dead students and professors should have acted is a jackass. Not only is it disrespectful to their families, it's impossible to do.

Because you weren't there.

I know how I will react. I'm sure this will be followed up calling my physical reaction "reckless, stupid, not thinking of worse case scenarios, ect." but we both walked away unharmed and with our money in our wallets.

This reminds me of people who say seat belts are unnecessary because they were in an accident once when they didn't wear one and they were able to walk away. That doesn't prove seat belts are unnecessary; it proves you got lucky.

"Posted by: Doug Atkinson at April 20, 2007 08:28 AM
That's for sure. D.C. has the highest murder rate in the country, and the strictest gun control laws. The guns per capita are extremely low, yet the murders keep happening. Montana has the highest gun per capita rate in the country, and increadily low murder stats.

I've always figured that population density was a factor there. The more people you squeeze into an area, the more likely they are to rub each other the wrong way, it's harder to get away from people altogether, and there's more chance of being close to somebody who deals with it lethally. Montana has the lowest population density of any US state (6.19/square mile); if DC were a state it would have the highest (9,015/square mile). That has to be a significant factor in the relative crime rates."

Isn't DC also close to areas where the gun laws are very lax? the fact hat it's hard to get a gun in DC is quite meaningless if you can easily get one after driving for half a hour. Also, guns are not the only factor in crime. Clearly DC has a greater crime problem than Montana. The accessibiility of guns is therefore much more significant in DC.

-------------
About fight or flight. it is not that complicated.

1) There is more than one normal reaction to being under fire, so judging people is wrong. Also, not everyone can and should be a hero, and there are different kinds of heroism. To keep yourself calm and safe or to help your friends get to safety is also quite heroic under such circumstances.

2) To jump a mugger whose close to you, or even a shooter, if you are close enough, is a risky but sensible. Just as running away or taking cover are. To try to attack a shooter who is far from you, when you are unarmed and untrained, and the shooter shhoting all over the place, is very risky and not very sensible.

3) A person possessing a gun and trained in its use and in conduct under fire could do something to disable a shooter, if he's close, but there is a risk of adding to the chaos, so think carefully. The first consideration is not being a cowboy but protecting your own life and the securing the lives of others. Moving away from the danger is often the best policy. Especially if you are not well trained to handle such a situation. For a bunch of students to draw guns and start hunting for this guy would have been very dangerous.

4) Bravado, especially the empty kind, is very different from heroism.

> I've always figured that population density was a factor there. The more people you squeeze into an area, the more likely they are to rub each other the wrong way...

Someone beat me to pointing out Tokyo, but I believe the Netherlands also have a relatively high population density (albeit a low overall population count) yet still have a relatively low murder rate.

You know, as soon as I hit the submit button on my last two posts, I realized what a mistake I'd made.

You didn't, Bill. You really didn't. It needed to be said.

I've got some thoughts on the whole gun control thing (unrelated to the VT shootings), but I think I'll save them for a time when I have a little more time to think through what I'm writing.

TWL

I'm not talking Smack, I just get disappointed when people would rather curl up then lash out. Fighting back, defending yourself, and others should be a natural instinct, and it shouldn't be frowned upon as your trying to emulate a friggin movie, at least as some people see it.

As far as Nivek simply doesn't understand passivity in the face of mortal danger, I don't necessarily see his concerns as pissing on the memories of the victims.

Perhaps the reply you need to hear starts with that most people only know who they are from how other people see them. As far as others accept the public role you adopt, that is enough confirmation for most people to accept that identity for themselves as well.

As far as most people have no experience interacting with someone trying to kill them, the challenge to their identity may be so severe it may create a paralyzing existential identity-crisis. Depending on the degree you've constructed your own identity, you may not relate to suffering an existential crisis from such a challenge to your identity -- but that doesn't mean your sense of self is invulnerable.

Consider your alternative of nurturing aggression: what are we going to do with a generation of Travis Bickles who haven't inherited a life they consider worth living?

Y'know, Nivek...I don't think anyone here really asked you to explain why it's possibly important to fight back in certain situations. 9-11 was only 6 years or so ago...pretty much everyone here on this board was around for that. We understand that at some point resistance is anything but futile, and in fact at times remains your only real choice, aside from rolling over and accepting your death.

But here's the thing...we're not talking about you facing a mugger, suddenly and up close. We're not talking about a plane on it's way to be used as a bomb, with only the passengers on it able to do anything to stop it. We're talking about an armed guy, clearly intent on his own death, out to cause as much death as he can before he dies. As others have said, had you been there, and with your prior "success" facing a weapon, you'd likely be dead. Maybe some ballistic expert would be able to tell you were charging the shooter, and surmise that you were trying to "fight back." Maybe not. Maybe someone would have seen you, and mentioned what it looked like you were trying to do, and perhaps you'd get a nice news piece about attempted heroism

Of course, you'd still be dead.

Is your response "I'd rather be killed trying to defend myself, than survive cowering in a closet?" I sort of think so, because that seems to be what your saying. You say someone that runs in the face of mortal danger "isn't all that bad." And maybe you really meant "isn't bad," but what you actually said was that someone that runs first isn't as good as someone that fights first.

Others have likely thought bad names at you, some have directly used them toward you. Here's what I call you...Lucky. Lucky that the mugger you faced was probably more scared than you were. Lucky that he didn't have his finger on the trigger, as your punch would likely have caused it to go off. Lucky you were able to incapacitate him enough to either drive him off or allow yourself to run away. Lucky he didn't decide to chase you and shoot you while you were running away for the humiliation you caused him.

Hell, you were so lucky that night, you probably could have hit several state's lotteries.

In the face of mortal danger, I'm sure we'd all like to think that we'd fight back. Thing is, you weren't in mortal danger. You were being robbed. You weren't facing someone hellbent on killing you, and not caring if they were killed in the process. So coming here and trying to make yourself appear to be some kind of expert in the face of life and death situations rings blatantly hollow to everyone here. The fact that you manage to drag 32 victims deaths through the mud in the process really shows what level of person you are.

Generally, if I were to go on the offensive in a lethal situation, I'd want to go in with all the odds stacked in my favor.

Nivek and his ilk, in their overweening machismo (and it IS a macho attitude) is acting stupidly. ANd it IS stupid, beause you don't know if you can take him out, you don't know what the firepower situation is, you don't know the tactical situation.

First thing they teach in martial arts classes...learn how to run. You only engage when there's no choice.

Nivek: "Well Jerry, unfortunately for your pitch, I HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY THREATENED WITH A GUN BEFORE. I simply reacted physically by punching the mugger in the throat because he was so close and drove the person away from me and my friend."

I'll accept that scenario. But, not to pick nits too fine, I was talking about an active shooter situation like at Tech.

I was talking about a situation where the shooter is actually shooting people and is a wee bit more then an arms reach away. I know two guys who are former officers who had dealt with close range situations like that (hell, I have) and performed admirably in them. One is an former officer because he got in a gun fight and killed a person. He couldn't deal with that. The other is a former officer because he froze in a situation involving gunfire. He could deal blades and guns that weren't actually fired at him, but having bullets coming at him just locked him up.

We train with simmunitions rounds in active shooter and other emergency situations. Lots of real guns firing all around you and hard as hell fancy pant rounds being shot at you. It's the closest you'll get to a situation like that without actually being in it. I do fine. The guys I train with do fine. But, the thing is, that's fun for us. There's no fear of death because we know that there's no bullets in use. The worst that we might get is a bad surface wound if a sim round catches our skin wrong. None of us claim to "know" what we'll do in a real situation or even what the real deal is like. The closest we get to saying anything like that is saying that, when the ship hits the sand, we hope our training kicks in and overrides instinct.

I'll give you credit on your experience, but it's nothing like what went down at Tech. You still have no idea what you would really do when facing down a man who's already shooting at you from ten, fifteen or twenty feet away rather then just saying he will from arms length. That's the situation I was talking about.

Bill Myers: "People are mourning. Do you get that? PEOPLE. ARE. MOURNING!!!!!!!!!!!! Actual human beings. Not characters in an action movie.
No one... NO ONE... has the right to imply that anyone who fled this rampage was a coward. I've known people who have been in real life-threatening situations, like cops and soliders, and NONE of them would EVER speak like that.

To everyone else: I'm sorry for any disruption this may cause but I am LIVID at the lack of decency some people are demonstrating. People DIED in this massacre and other people's hearts are bleeding with grief. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that there are people out there who would DARE piss on the memories of these victims."

But that would require tact, good taste and common sense as well as a realization that there are differences between peoples reactions when on their own VS in a group and that no one knows what they'll ultimately do with rounds actively being sent downrange at them.

Bill Myers: "You know, as soon as I hit the submit button on my last two posts, I realized what a mistake I'd made.

No mistake made. I'm hitting the same point that you are. My fuse just burns differently then yours so it doesn't look like I'm at that point. Yet.

Den: "They. Weren't. There."

Bingo!!!!! Man gets the award for hitting the bullseye.

First thing they teach in martial arts classes...learn how to run.

The other thing they teach is, no matter how good a figher you are, you're still not bulletproof.

I happen to be a 2nd degree blackbelt and I'm a fairly big guy. Looking at pictures of Cho, I feel confident in saying that despite the fact that I'm 14 years older than him, I could have taken him in a fair fight.

But a lunatic with automatic pistols is not a fair fight. I'd like to say I'd know exactly what I'd do in that situation, but no one really does until they've been there. What I believe I would do, however, is do everything I could to help other people get the hell out of there. Going all Batman on a murderous psychopath may make a nice fantasy, but in the real world, an untrained person trying to do that usually ends up getting himself or others killed. The police are trained to subdue such an attacker. The best thing for civilians to do is to get the hell out of their way.

The police are trained to subdue such an attacker. The best thing for civilians to do is to get the hell out of their way.

One thing I'm going to point out is that, generally, police are trained AND they have all the tactical odds on their side (i.e., firepower, armor, control of the grounds, etc.). And sometimes, bad things STILL happen.

Under less controlled conditions, when all the factors aren't in your favor, what are the likely outcomes? Wish people would think of that...

I wonder if Nivek is getting the aftereffect of Robert Preston's posts? Certainly, we all appreciate acts of courage and sacrifice, although we don't expect everybody to be heroic. It's the arrogant attitude that views the victims and the survivors of the massacre as if they were cowards or badly educated, which draws condemnation. especially when it comes from someone whose first post on this blog was calling everybody on it cowards.

Richard Pryor:

A lot of people get an ass whupping when you could run! You'll be in the hospital, your ego will heal a lot faster than a broken jaw. 'Cause you'll still be in the hospital going "Shit, I should've run."

Run! That's right. Somebody pull a knife on you, and you can't pull out nothing but a hand with some skin on it, your intelligence ought to tell you to RUN! But people be watching Kojak and shit too much, they think they have to be Macho Man! I'll take that knife and shut it up your ass!

I'm Macho Man!

You go from Macho Man to dead person.

'Cause see in the movies always make looking get stabbed with a knife look like it's cool, right? 'Cause it has that music "Nana, Nananana." See in real life, you don't hear no "Nanana". All you feel, is a knife in your ass. You'll be done by "Nanana".

So, run! And teach your old lady how to run so you don't have to go back after her ass! You say "I'll meet you at home in 5 minutes baby!" Then you've got something to laugh about when you get home, right? Say "Baby, shit, I beat you here about 2 minutes, what the fuck happened?"

Den: And, as I said before, I have no idea why it's important to know how many of the students fought back before they were shot. This was not a video game or a Rambo movies. It was not an opportunity for people who were not there to live out some kind of macho fantasy. It was real people who were facing an ambush from an armed assailant.

Nivek: My god... If someone has to explain WHY you fight back in a situation like this, then just take yourself out of this discussion.
Luigi Novi: That’s funny, the question to which you responded clearly wasn’t about the issue of why one fights back. It was about how many of them did. Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

Anyone who engages in as brazen as a Straw Man argument like that, and for the purpose of so callously insulting another person on this blog over a tragedy like this, is far more guilty of “taking themselves out of the discussion” than the one who asked the original question.

But then again, a cruel-hearted troll who gets his rocks off by insulting the victims of this rampage by accusing them of “needing someone to fight for them”—and who hides behind the anonymity afforded to him by the Internet while doing so—probably doesn’t care about the proper etiquette concerning “discussion”.

I wonder, Nivek: If you met a loved one of one of the victims, would you repeat that assertion about them needing someone to fight for them to their face? And would you do so while giving your real name?

Or would you flee?

Well, I guess some people are sincere enough in their own position, and polite enough in the way they express it that they would stand their ground.

Someone others, however, exhibit “flight” tendencies by “hiding” behind anonymity and insults.

Nivek: Well Jerry, unfortunately for your pitch, I HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY THREATENED WITH A GUN BEFORE. I simply reacted physically by punching the mugger in the throat because he was so close and drove the person away from me and my friend.
Luigi Novi: And many, if not all of those at VT, may not have been close enough to do this, or been of the mind to react as you did.

The self-aggrandizement and narcissism required to not comprehend this, and to make value judgments about them based on how they reacted are nauseating.

What do the collective you think about the NASA situation? I mean, could that be a sort of copycat situation, or is it's proximity to the VT killings just an unfortunate coincidence? I have to admit, though, that my first thought when I heard about it was "Aren't NASA people supposed to be a little more stable?" You've got the love triangle woman from last time, now this.

My take on NASA is that it's too soon to say.

I wasn't pissing on the memories of the victims, I am simply tired of hearing people acting like anyone who has a aggressive response to trauma are uncultured apes just because they don't think the same way you do. Some of us, without knowing details, simply think "but it was just one guy..." and how he was able to slaughter so many people apparently unabated.

I'm sorry that some of you are so quick to find bad guys in all this. But I was not saying ANYTHING about the victims themselves. I was commenting about people who are treating "What if another gun was in a potential victims hand?" like they are over aggressive apes. It's an honest question, that has a hard to swallow simple answer. I'm sorry if you dont approve.

You're so full of shit. The original statement to which you responded was this:

And, as I said before, I have no idea why it's important to know how many of the students fought back before they were shot. This was not a video game or a Rambo movies. It was not an opportunity for people who were not there to live out some kind of macho fantasy. It was real people who were facing an ambush from an armed assailant.

As soon as you can show us what in that statement even comes close to touching upon "treating people with aggressive responsese as uncultured apes"

Nivek: But I was not saying ANYTHING about the victims themselves.
Luigi Novi: This is what you said:

It is Fight or Flight Instinct. Your obviously a Flight person, which isn't all that bad, you apparently are just the type of person that needs someone to fight for them.

Some of the victims in the rampage undoubtedly tried to flee, or otherwise did not "fight back". Thus, you were talking about them.

Nivke: I was commenting about people who are treating "What if another gun was in a potential victims hand?" like they are over aggressive apes...
Luigi Novi: No, you were not. You were responding to the statement by Den that you yourself quoted in your post, which I have reproduced here. Pretending that you were responding to something else is only going to come off as back pedaling, particularly to those who have the ability to scroll and see what you actually said, and who and what you were actually saying it to. It is that sort of dishonesty that I do not approve of. Not questions about relaxed gun laws.

Posted by: NIVEK at April 21, 2007 01:57 AM

I wasn't pissing on the memories of the victims, I am simply tired of hearing people acting like anyone who has a aggressive response to trauma are uncultured apes just because they don't think the same way you do. Some of us, without knowing details, simply think "but it was just one guy..." and how he was able to slaughter so many people apparently unabated.

Wow, that's a pretty neat trick: to claim you're not pissing on the memories of innocent victims and then to piss on said memories yet again... all in one breath.

To even ask the question of how "just one guy" could "slaughter so many people" implies that the victims should have done more. Never mind the fact that one of the victims was a professor who died using himself as a human shield, standing in the doorway of his classroom taking bullets so his students could jump out of a window. Never mind the fact that Jerry Chandler, a police officer, has thoroughly explained why it's a horrible idea for civilians to play the hero in such situations. No, all that matters is that you, "Nivek," fancy yourself an action hero and want to use this awful tragedy as an excuse to make sure all of us know it.

"Some of us, without knowing details, simply think..."

Jesus Christ, what a stupid statement. It would be more accurate to say that people like you, without knowing details, DON'T think. You just open your mouth, dig a hole, and then when you're called on it keep digging deeper.

It's time to SHUT YOUR MOUTH and walk away from this. It's time to stop digging a hole and throwing mud on the memories of 32 departed souls who were INNOCENT VICTIMS of an unimaginable hailstorm of violence.

If you can't understand how you're being disrepectful, you have some soul-searching to do. Well, then, go to it... and leave the memories of these innocent victims, and those who are coming to grips with their loss, in peace.

Can you do at least that? Can you show at least one small shred of decency?

Posted by: NIVEK at April 21, 2007 01:57 AM:

"I wasn't pissing on the memories of the victims, I am simply tired of hearing people acting like anyone who has a aggressive response to trauma are uncultured apes."

I think that nobody is saying that people who have aggressive response to trauma are uncultured apes. What they/we are saying is, that people who feel that the victims of this massacre are somehow deficient because they did not have an aggressive response, are uncultured apes.

"Some of us, without knowing details, simply think "but it was just one guy..." and how he was able to slaughter so many people apparently unabated."

Finding the details might help answer that question. I don't find the question itself problematic as much as the assumptions and presumptions that seem to hide behind it, as well as not willing to wait for the details.

"I was commenting about people who are treating "What if another gun was in a potential victims hand?" like they are over aggressive apes. It's an honest question, that has a hard to swallow simple answer."

The answer is anything but simple. Which was the point Jerry Chandler and other were making.

Bill Myers:
"Never mind the fact that one of the victims was a professor who died using himself as a human shield, standing in the doorway of his classroom taking bullets so his students could jump out of a window."

Exactly. Here we have a situation where a person found in himself something that resulted in heroic action. We admire it, but who knows if any one of us would find it in itself when the time came. We certainly do not go around condemning others for not doing the same thing.

Regarding the "fight or flight" debate, I agree with the others who've said that you need to be in that kind of situation before you know for sure. (Incidentally, there were similar sentiments expressed by Bruce Banner in PAD's "Hulk" movie novelisation.)

About 10 years ago, a prostitute tried to mug me; I wound up with my back against a wall, while she pushed a pair of scissors against my stomach and said "Give me your money or I'll stab you". I said no. I'd like to think that if a male attacker had done the same thing then I would have thumped him; I might not have won the fight, but I'd at least have made the attempt. However, I have a mental block about hitting women, so I tried to talk her out of it; when that didn't work, I pushed her away and ran for it, so I got a small cut on my hand (when I'd cupped it over the point of the scissors), but I avoided serious injury. (More details in my blog at http://johnckirk.livejournal.com/4651.html)

However, that was a close range situation, without a projectile weapon. A few years after that, I played paintball with some friends at a stag weekend. One interesting point about this was that I realised what a bad aim I have; when I tried shooting from the hip, I couldn't hit any of the tin cans on the wall nearby, let alone a moving target. So, in a real confrontation, I'd have no chance of aiming to hit someone in the leg/arm - I'd just have to aim for the middle of their body and hope for the best (and probably still miss). The rest of my friends were pretty bad shots too, which meant that we had to be fairly close to each other to actually hit each other with the balls, and this in turn meant that the impacts hurt quite a lot. The guy in charge said that when he played it, he'd barely even notice when he got hit, because it would be a gentle splat from long distance, but we were all covered in bruises by the end of the day.

So, when we were actually playing one of the sessions, I wound up hiding behind a tree while people on the other team were shooting at me, and I could hear all the paint balls splattering against the other side of the tree. Frankly, it was scary. The objective of the game was for me to shoot them (in order to win), but I didn't want to move out into plain view, because I was pretty sure that I'd get hurt. This was when I had a "weapon" myself, so the idea of charging at them unarmed in order to wrestle their paintgun off them would just be ridiculous - I'd never get anywhere near them. If there were real bullets flying around, I don't think that I'd be any more enthusiastic about putting myself in harm's way.

I did judo classes at school, and our instructor gave us three tips for dealing with guns, depending on the situation:

a) If the attacker puts the gun right at your head (with the barrel pushing against your skin), there are some moves you can do to disarm him, although they aren't guaranteed to work. (The basic idea is to turn your head quickly so that the gun is now pointing away from you, and grab his arm before he can re-aim it.)

b) If you're a reasonable distance away (say 20 feet or so), make a run for it, because he'll hopefully miss if he shoots at you.

c) If you're standing near him, but not in direct contact with the gun, do whatever he tells you to do, otherwise you'll die. (Mind you, this doesn't allow for the situation where he intends to kill you anyway.)

As for the Virginia events, I wasn't there, so I'm not going to criticise anyone who had to deal with that guy shooting at them.

Nivek, you'd probably have a better response if you gave any indication that you've read the responses and thought about them.

Giving simplistic responses while ignoring some the nuanced and experienced responses gives the impressison that you're not thinking about things. When a lot of experts in martial arts and police matters are giving answers counter to yours, perhaps it's time to stop and figure out why.

My two cents to ANYBODY who questions why nobody pulled a Rambo, to ANYBODY who asserts that there was any question of cowardice, or people needing someone to fight for them..TRT IT!!

I worked bar security in my younger days. I'm a big boy, I've studied unarmed combat techniques. I've had pool cues, broken bottles, knives, and guns pointed at me. Skynard had it right:

"I'm tellin' you son
It ain't no fun
Starin' straight down a .44"

The best advice I ever got was from a friend's father, who was at the time a 28 year veteran Toronto police officer. "Unless you can shoot back RUN LIKE HELL. If you can't run, hole up, wait for help, and if you so desire, pray."

It takes a particular brand of ignorance to imply that anyone on the campus could have done any more than they did.

We aren't talking Hollywood here. Steven Seagal was not going to march on the scene, squint, and take out the shooter.

Any argument in favour of some hindsight heroics is asinine. Any accusation of cowardice is cowardly. Any claim that "I would have tried to take him down" is bullshit.

IMHO

or is it's proximity to the VT killings just an unfortunate coincidence?

Unfortunate coincidence, as the # of actual similar shootings, whether in schools, office buildings, etc, is sadly becoming commonplace.

It's just that the # of victims is generally only 1-3 people at most, and thus don't get the kind of coverage this does.

If Cho had stopped after visiting the dorm where he killed two people, this would have been merely a blip on the radar.

Something just happened to me at work that made me think of this event in general and this thread in specific. I got done the first half of my job, then went into where I was going to be working for the second half of my long day. The guy that was in here isn't very well liked around here, being a bit of an abrasive Cliff Claven wannabe. Me, being me, asked if he was going to be doing anything fun this evening. He looked at me with the nastiest expression and said he was going home to eat dinner alone, because he had no friends. I wouldn't have given it a second thought if not for this whole situation. I could easily imagine Cho being like this guy. I'm not trying to sound preachy or holier-than-thou or anything, but maybe if we reached out to people even when they reject it, maybe people wouldn't feel so isolated, maybe they wouldn't need to do things like this. Just because someone's not your friend, there's no need to make them an enemy.

Yet another right-winger exploits the Massacre in order to attack a group of people he doesn't like:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971

Now Dinesh D'Souza uses the Virginia Tech Massacre to attack atheists. An atheist VT professor responds with a quiet, dignified refutation of D'Souza's shamelessness, and D'Souza, for his part, just doesn't seem to get it (See http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/20/unbelief-as-a-form-of-payback/#comments.)

I don't know what is wrong with D'Souza. After 9/11, I read his book What's So Great About America, where he came off as cogent, and reasoned, even in disagreeing with the positions of, IIRC, extreme liberals and extreme right-wingers.

But between the Daily Show rant in which he blamed liberals for 9/11, and now this, it seems that either he has shifted into a completely incoherent, bigoted scumbag, or that perhaps he always was that way, and I simply hadn't been exposed to enough of his writings to get a more accurate picture of his character.

Can you believe some of the paralogia this guy spews as supposedly logical? Because Dawkins wasn't invited to speak at VT, that means atheists have nothing to offer at memorials? Really? In what way does the school's choice of who to invite reflect on whether the person in question has said abilities? Does D'Souza think that nonbelievers don't have funerals, wakes, and other services of their own? And atheists "blame" and "hate" God, and their unbelief is a form of "payback"? How does he get this idea from the people posting on his blog?

It's a shame that one of the few conservative writers that I actually thought had something intelligent to say now comes across as belligerent and mentally addled as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and O'Reilly.

Yet another right-winger exploits the Massacre in order to attack a group of people he doesn't like:
ht tp://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/19/18451/0971

Now Dinesh D'Souza uses the Virginia Tech Massacre to attack atheists. An atheist VT professor responds with a quiet, dignified refutation of D'Souza's shamelessness, and D'Souza, for his part, just doesn't seem to get it (See ht tp://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/20/unbelief-as-a-form-of-payback/#comments.)

I don't know what is wrong with D'Souza. After 9/11, I read his book What's So Great About America, where he came off as cogent, and reasoned, even in disagreeing with the positions of, IIRC, extreme liberals and extreme right-wingers.

But between the Daily Show rant in which he blamed liberals for 9/11, and now this, it seems that either he has shifted into a completely incoherent, bigoted scumbag, or that perhaps he always was that way, and I simply hadn't been exposed to enough of his writings to get a more accurate picture of his character.

Can you believe some of the paralogia this guy spews as supposedly logical? Because Dawkins wasn't invited to speak at VT, that means atheists have nothing to offer at memorials? Really? In what way does the school's choice of who to invite reflect on whether the person in question has said abilities? Does D'Souza think that nonbelievers don't have funerals, wakes, and other services of their own? And atheists "blame" and "hate" God, and their unbelief is a form of "payback"? How does he get this idea from the people posting on his blog?

It's a shame that one of the few conservative writers that I actually thought had something intelligent to say now comes across as belligerent and mentally addled as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and O'Reilly.

Actually, D'Souza has been raked over the coals lately by several conservatives over at the National Review website. And his reaction to the critisizm didn't change any minds. It seems to have made him very very cranky.

The National Review crowd don't seem too thrilled with this latest outburst either--Andrew Stuttaford highlights a commentator who says If anyone seeks comfort in religion in terrible times, I genuinely wish them well. It's not my choice, but I don't presume to know what's better for anyone else. Just myself. People practicing religion does not offend me. But opportunistic zealots who take a national tragedy and use it to promote their own religious agenda do.

D'Souza ideas are not very original. It's the same old nonsense you usually hear in attacks against atheism. It wouldn't be worth mentioning if he did not try to attack that inane and unoriginal argument to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Surely he could put his animosity toward Atheism aside for a week or two.

The response is excellent.

One more thing about D'Souza's absurd words. The fact that memorial ceremonies have had heavy religious motifs is mostly an aspect of US culture. Here is Israel we are having our annual week of rememberance, starting with the holocaust rememberance day lasy Monday and ending with the rememberance day for the soldiers next Monday. This is an unusually solemn time for us, and the ceremonies, although not devoid of religion, have many completely secular aspects to them that are no less (if not more) touching. Many of the really sad and touching songs sung during thse ceremonies were written by atheists.

D'Souza comes across as an insensitive and opportunistic ass, but I have to confess that I find myself agreeing with the basics of his idea - atheist thought isn't exactly a great consolation to most people, particularly in times of great personal tragedy. And I say this as a person that isn't very religious.

But Mr. D'Souza shows us that some religious people aren't a great consolation to us all either... because being religion means little if you're devoid of human compassion, basic decency, and even simple common sense.

"... atheist thought isn't exactly a great consolation to most people, particularly in times of great personal tragedy.

The idea that there is no afterlife may be disquieting to some, but statements made at a memorial service other then those referencing God or Heaven are mostly indistinguishable from a Christian's words.

We lost a friend to cancer a few years ago. The most eloquent and moving speaker at the memorial service was an atheist. The only thing she didn't do was mention better places and angels. She did such a good job that a pastor speaking to her later was surprised to learn of her lifelong beliefs.

I honestly doubt that most people would know the belief system of an atheist speaking about such an event unless they were told. Discussions of friends lost and the pain of that loss transcend something as, in cases like this, relatively trivial as belief systems. But that's just my opinion on it.

I honestly doubt that most people would know the belief system of an atheist speaking about such an event unless they were told.

That is for sure. The atheist will usually not refer directly to his lack of belief in a supernatural power during the service, I daresay. Because the atheist himself knows it will be little consolation to most other people, being told their loved ones are gone for good.

I don't say this as a criticism of atheists, I don't say they're wrong to (not) believe like they do. Just saying that atheism itself isn't a great consolation to most people in trying times. Most people really want to hear their loved ones are in a better place now.

D'Souza is suffering from society's exhaustion from his (and other rightwing pundit's) campaign to demonize liberals as the cause of all evil. It's B.S. and they're losing their dominance of the discussion. So they have to scream even more absurdities just to tread water (like Ann Coulter's entire career).

The current flame of conservativism is dying out. They brought many complaints and not a single just or viable solution to any of it. Their solution to homosexuality is denial of the word marriage. Their solution to growing gov't (and spending) is to grow more gov't (and spending). Fiscal responsibility means to mushroom the national debt. The solution to immigration is...well, do nothing apparently. Supporting the troops means treat them like shit. And strong national security means to weaken our military and encourage anti-Americanism throughout the world.

Is it any wonder rightwing pundits are scrambling?

FYI, another right-wing rant commented upon here.

Would it hurt these bozos to do just a LITTLE research??

Rene: atheist thought isn't exactly a great consolation to most people, particularly in times of great personal tragedy.
Luigi Novi: Didn't you read the VT Professor's response? It seemed pretty nice to me. It's easy to say that atheists cannot console during times of tragedy if you simply don't have enough imagination to conceive of them doing so.

As an atheist, I'd like to weigh in on this particular thread drift.

Two of my grandparents passed away when I was in my twenties, and I spoke at both memorial services. The first was held in a church (albeit Unitarian, which I'm not sure really counts :-), and the second, four years later when my grandmother passed, was a small family-only ceremony on the banks of the Charles River in Boston (where the two grandparents met; we scattered their commingled ashes in the river).

I didn't mention my own atheism in either case, though certainly in the second ceremony everyone present knew of it anyway and probably 1/3 to 1/2 of them shared it. My atheism was not the point -- saying something fitting about my grandfather or grandmother was the point, and I tailored my words accordingly. (The closest thing to an atheistic point I made was at the first memorial, saying how sad I was that I never got the chance to tell my grandfather that I'd just left grad school for a teaching career, and I think people will agree that any number of religious people could have said exactly the same thing.)

If the statement that "atheist thought isn't exactly a great consolation to most people" refers to the specific point that "once you're gone, you're gone," then I agree that that's probably not very comforting. But that doesn't mean that atheists themselves cannot be comforting in times of tragedy. Being religious does not automatically make one compassionate and able to console (as D'Souza's words make all too clear), and being an atheist does not preclude one from having those traits.

Most people really want to hear their loved ones are in a better place now.

Not this person, unless the speaker had proof. But again, that doesn't mean that I'd respond in some offensive way if someone were to say that to me in general. Going back to my grandmother's memorial, her cousin's husband has been a minister in Florida for decades at this point, and he officiated at both ceremonies. I disagreed with some of the substance of what he said, but not the compassionate intent. Contrary to what far too many people think by taking words out of context, the intent matters a lot to most atheists (occasional outspoken Don Quixotes like Michael Newdow excepted).

As one more example, as most of you know my mother is now in the category of "cancer survivor," having gone through surgery for stage 3 esophageal cancer this winter. She's an agnostic, but she was very accepting and gracious when friends told her that they were praying for her. (One of her other friends said to her once that they viewed praying as "mostly just wishing really hard," and my mom has viewed it through that prism ever since.)

People practicing religion does not offend me. But opportunistic zealots who take a national tragedy and use it to promote their own religious agenda do.

Superbly put, and firmly agreed.

TWL

As an atheist, I'd like to weigh in on this particular thread drift. Two of my grandparents passed away when I was in my twenties, and I spoke at both memorial services.

Luigi, Tim, I've read what the VT Professor responded and, being mostly an agnostic myself, I don't doubt for a second that atheists are as capable of compassion and offering consolation as anyone else.

I only meant to say that atheism itself can be very troubling for the average person when you're forced to face situations like fear of death or the absence of departed loved ones.

D'Souza says some ridiculous things (Atheists seeking to "spite God" with their unbelief? WTF, how can you spite someone you don't believe in?) but I find myself agreeing with him in this one specific: no one would have the chutzpah to go to a memorial service and talk about the lack of inherent meaning in the universe.

Even though far too many people wonder about the meaning of it all when a tragedy like this strikes, and doubt that there is a merciful God that would allow such things to happen...

I've lost my mother to cancer 3 years ago, and I went from a relaxed believer in spiritualism to someone very troubled and afraid that there is nothing supernatural out there. At least to me, my doubts and suspicions that maybe there isn't a God out there are not consoling at all.

I come from this from a direction than D'Souza. He sounds like an obnoxious religious guy wanting to stomping those who believe differently. I'm merely someone with a personal fear that the Atheits may be right.

I come from this from a different direction than D'Souza, I meant.

(The closest thing to an atheistic point I made was at the first memorial, saying how sad I was that I never got the chance to tell my grandfather that I'd just left grad school for a teaching career, and I think people will agree that any number of religious people could have said exactly the same thing.)

Tim, I'm just curious, how is that in any way even close to an atheistic point?

And I'm glad to hear your mom is surviving the cancer. Has she been able to keep weight on? The biggest challange we had when my father in law (from my previous marriage) was living with us during his fight with esophageal cancer was in getting him to not lose weight. You wouldn't believe what this guy ate. He could take bacon and spinage and turn it into the unhealthiest fat filled dish imaginable. (It was, however, the absolute best spinage I've ever had). We cooked like french chefs, adding cream to everything. I think my ex and I gained 15 pounds each while he lived with us.

Anyway, here's to her continued health.

And now the pro-gun apples are falling from the tree:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070422195959

""This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP."

I can only shake my head at the absurdity of such a claim. Whomever it was that brought up the situation of several students all trying to play Rambo at once, and probably killing each other in the process, needs to mention it to this guy.

no one would have the chutzpah to go to a memorial service and talk about the lack of inherent meaning in the universe.

Agreed, but I'm not really sure that's an opinion common to all atheists. Saying "there's no god / no afterlife" doesn't mean "the universe has no inherent meaning" -- it just means there's no supernatural element. I think you're considering a somewhat extreme case.

I understand the reason for your own worries a little better now, though, and I'm very sorry to hear about your mother. I can see how that could lead anyone to a "fear that the atheists might be right."

Tim, I'm just curious, how is that in any way even close to an atheistic point?

Because if there's an afterlife, I could "rest easy" in the knowledge that he'd find out anyway. I seem to recall having one relative say something to me to that effect (w/o the "if") later that day.

And I'm glad to hear your mom is surviving the cancer. Has she been able to keep weight on?

So far, yes. She's thinner than she'd like to be (as she says, "boy is THAT a switch"), but her weight has stabilized. We'll see how it works long-term, but it seems to be okay for the nonce. Thanks for the good thoughts.

TWL

Because if there's an afterlife, I could "rest easy" in the knowledge that he'd find out anyway. I seem to recall having one relative say something to me to that effect (w/o the "if") later that day.

Ah, yeah, I could see that. Of course, even believers are often left with regrets about what was or wasn't said during a person's life. Whatever may come after death, I don't think it will be much like what we have now and if we want to share ourselves with others now is the time to do it. I suspect the afterlife, if it exists, is as different to this reality as birth would seem to a fetus.

She's thinner than she'd like to be (as she says, "boy is THAT a switch")

So she should shortly run into the Well Meaning Idiot who will say something to the effect of "Boy, I wish I could get cancer too!" medical issues somehow really bring out the inner moron in a lot of people.

Tim, it is good to hear your mother is doing well.

Rene, I'm sorry about your mother.

-----------

"no one would have the chutzpah to go to a memorial service and talk about the lack of inherent meaning in the universe.

Agreed, but I'm not really sure that's an opinion common to all atheists. Saying "there's no god / no afterlife" doesn't mean "the universe has no inherent meaning" -- it just means there's no supernatural element. I think you're considering a somewhat extreme case."

I don't agree with Rene's statement completely. Atheists wouldn't or shouldn't go to a funeral waving their beliefs because it is not polite, not because it is incompatible with memorial services. Talking about the afterlife is typical and expected of ceremonies in some cultures, and it is therefore not polite to go to funerals looking for a fight over this issue. But I suppose that if someone went to funeral where the majority of the people were atheists and started talking about god having a plan and afterlife, that would be chutzpah too. It depends on what you expect. Where I live memorials and funerals are mostly focused on the living remebering the dead and the continuation of life, not afterlife. I don't know if it is as consoling as belief in an afterlife, but it is a form of consolation for others.

"Agreed, but I'm not really sure that's an opinion common to all atheists. Saying "there's no god / no afterlife" doesn't mean "the universe has no inherent meaning" -- it just means there's no supernatural element. I think you're considering a somewhat extreme case."

True. The kind of atheism that bemoans the lack of meaning everywhere is morre a reflection of the psychological attitude of the speaker. I think a moderate version of atheism would say that there is no inherent meaning to the natural world or outside that world, but there's an abundance of meaning in the human world we live in. Hence the focus on how the dead are remembered, and what they have left behind, rather than their possible supernatural fate.

Ah, yeah, I could see that. Of course, even believers are often left with regrets about what was or wasn't said during a person's life.

Absolutely, which is why I mentioned earlier that I thought lots of believers could have said exactly the same thing I did.

So she should shortly run into the Well Meaning Idiot who will say something to the effect of "Boy, I wish I could get cancer too!"

So far, she's managed to escape that ... at least so far as I know. Of course, since a lot of her friends are also therapists, one would hope that there'd be a lesser probability of that particular idiocy...

Micha -- well said.

TWL

D'Souza's attitude is fairly common, not among the majority of religious people, but among peopel that I would categorize as actively anti-atheist. Because it is inconceivable for people like him to even imagine not believing in God, he can't imagine anyone else not believing in the existance of God. Therefore, in his mind, the only explanation for proclaiming nonbelief is "spite".

Atheists wouldn't or shouldn't go to a funeral waving their beliefs because it is not polite, not because it is incompatible with memorial services.

I must have missed the huge waive of atheists waving their beliefs at a funeral that inspired D'Souza's rant, although I agree it would be disrespectful. The only people that I ever see waving their beliefs uninvited at a funeral are the Fred Phelps Cult. I won't even give them the dignity of calling them a "church".

I pondered Nivek's statements over the weekend. Despite his denials, he was actively pissing on the graves of the shooting victims. What still bugs me is that he felt the need to reply to a statement by me that didn't even match up to his pissing.

The best I can guess about his motives is this is his way of coping with the tragedy. He has to convince himself and others that he could never be a victim so he overcompensates.

Tim, I'm glad to hear your mother is responding well. My thoughts still go out to her.

"D'Souza's attitude is fairly common, not among the majority of religious people, but among peopel that I would categorize as actively anti-atheist. Because it is inconceivable for people like him to even imagine not believing in God, he can't imagine anyone else not believing in the existance of God. Therefore, in his mind, the only explanation for proclaiming nonbelief is "spite"."

The impression from American TV's portrayal of atheists is that atheism is viewed as a sort of deficiency, as if something is lacking or not damaged in that person. I don't know if this reflects attitudes among americans in general or just TV creators.

"The best I can guess about his motives is this is his way of coping with the tragedy. He has to convince himself and others that he could never be a victim so he overcompensates."

This is a charitable way of looking at Nivek's post, and it is most likely true. People sometimes resent victims of tragedy because they challenge our own sense of security. We want to regain control.

In a sense, this can explain many different reactions to tragedies. The discussion about gun laws or campus security (although justified) are also an attempt to find what went wrong and restore security.

In a very disturbed way, even the murder itself was an (completely unjustified) attempt by a madman to regain control by taking a very decisive action.

The impression from American TV's portrayal of atheists is that atheism is viewed as a sort of deficiency, as if something is lacking or not damaged in that person. I don't know if this reflects attitudes among americans in general or just TV creators.

I'm curious, Micha -- where have you seen American TV portray atheists at all? I rarely do -- admittedly, I'm not watching much these days that isn't geared towards toddlers, and it's not likely to come up there.

I don't know if that would reflect attitudes among most Americans, though I'd hope not. It certainly reflects the attitude of our current president's father, however -- he said back in 1987 (I think) that he didn't consider atheists citizens. To be specific, he said:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

He's stood by that statement multiple times, so it's not like he can claim he's been taken out of context or misquoted.

Thanks, George. Right back at'cha.

TWL

The impression from American TV's portrayal of atheists is that atheism is viewed as a sort of deficiency, as if something is lacking or not damaged in that person. I don't know if this reflects attitudes among Americans in general or just TV creators.

Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all--what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends? (OK, I know Ross dressed up as the Chanukah Armadillo and Phoebe was into reincarnation but spirituality was pretty much an occasional plot point.). Compared to the actual population, the TV world is much more secular.

This is a charitable way of looking at Nivek's post, and it is most likely true. People sometimes resent victims of tragedy because they challenge our own sense of security. We want to regain control.

It also explains some of the far out wacky conspiracy theories that people so desperately want to believe. Better to think that the government set charges to blow up the Twin Towers than face the reality that it was accomplished by a few fanatics. How safe can anyone feel if a nobody like Oswald can take out a JFK. In a strange way, the Big Secret Plan is more comforting.

Posted by: bill mulligan at April 23, 2007 03:29 PM

Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all...

Who can blame them? Religion is such a contentious issue, and people are always looking for excuses to be offended.

By the way, I want it on record that I was very offended by my prior post.

Your offensive use of offensiveness is an offense to those truly offended by the offensive.

Bill, aren't you being just a bit defensive?

Anyone else hearing dialogue from "The Black Hole" all of a sudden? Which Bill is Roddy MacDowell?

TWL

Actually, I was getting flashes of a Bloom County Sunday strip. But now that you mention it...

One Bill is the robot from the Black Hole, one is the Cornelius from Planet of the Apes. Of course, if you wanna substitute Brent Spiner notable roles, one is B4 and one is Southern Bob from Night Court.

"Never saw the sun...wanna bite outta our demo?"

"I'm curious, Micha -- where have you seen American TV portray atheists at all? I rarely do -- admittedly, I'm not watching much these days that isn't geared towards toddlers, and it's not likely to come up there."

I have to admit this is a vague impression based on years of watching way to much TV. So it should be taken in that spirit. I remember two cases vaguely. One was the Croatian doctor in ER who begame an atheist as a result of the death of his family until he regained it later on. The second was a character in teen show Dawson Creek (yes, I admit it, I've watched that show for a while, how embarassing), who, I am told, recanted in the final chapter after a life of misery. I remember being surpried that they even had an atheist character.

I'm not sure if there is a connection between the attitude toward atheism on TV and Bush.

In any case, my sister sent me the a link to a list of fictional atheists from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_atheists

She also sent me an essay about acceptable targets for ridicule (WASPs rednecks, etc.) which you may find interesting in relation to previous discussions on this board. Although I don't think I completely agree with it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AcceptableTargets : "Explicit atheists. On the other hand, it's hard to find a happy, well-adjusted, or optimistic individual on television who is an openly avowed atheist. Not appearing to practice or even mention religion at all is fine for everyone, but it's generally only characters with a fair degree of cynicism and bitterness (sometimes due to a Dead Little Sister or similar tragedy) who can state outright that they don't believe there is a God, or even that they severely doubt God exists. Such characters often reverse or at least reexamine these views, after a Very Special Episode or a Do They Know Its Christmas Time. See, for example, House on House, Mal on Firefly, or the film Signs.
Science Fiction series are often exceptions, since many were written by atheists, and may go so far as to posit a future where mankind "no longer needs gods".
For instance, in Star Trek The Next Generation, an accident with a cultural observer duckblind and the Enterprise's response inadvertently gets a native from the planet's Vulcan like, but primitive, (and thus under Prime Directive restrictions) culture thinking that they are gods. This misapprehension plants the seed for the revival of religion on the planet and Capt. Picard is determined to nip that development in the bud."

The last link is to an interview about a group of militant atheists (a view I do not support), but it also touches on my point.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2006/12/15/01

-------------
Posted by: bill mulligan at April 23, 2007 03:29 PM:

Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all--what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends? (OK, I know Ross dressed up as the Chanukah Armadillo and Phoebe was into reincarnation but spirituality was pretty much an occasional plot point.). Compared to the actual population, the TV world is much more secular."

Friends is not a good example. Comedies in general are probably not good examples, with the exception of Ally MacBeal. But dramas like West Wing, ER, 6 Feet Under, Boston Legal, the Practice, etc. do touch on spiritual and religious issues every once in a while. At the very least at the obligatory Christmas Chapter. It is true that TV characters are usually not devoutly religious, but they always seem to be just spiritual enough, in an ecumenical kind of way.

This is not a condemnation. I'm not the kind of atheist who resents religion. Just an observation.

By the way, the chapter with Ross and Chanuka was interesting to me because it supposedly reflected on Jewish life in the US, of which I'm only vaguely familiar (I have many relatives in the US, but not close).

one is the Cornelius from Planet of the Apes

I rather thought that would have to be Jerry, given some of the self-descriptions he's posted here in the last several weeks...

TWL

"I'm curious, Micha -- where have you seen American TV portray atheists at all? I rarely do -- admittedly, I'm not watching much these days that isn't geared towards toddlers, and it's not likely to come up there."

I have to admit this is a vague impression based on years of watching way to much TV. So it should be taken in that spirit. I remember two cases vaguely. One was the Croatian doctor in ER who begame an atheist as a result of the death of his family until he regained it later on. The second was a character in teen show Dawson Creek (yes, I admit it, I've watched that show for a while, how embarassing), who, I am told, recanted in the final chapter after a life of misery. I remember being surpried that they even had an atheist character.

I'm not sure if there is a connection between the attitude toward atheism on TV and Bush.

My sister sent me a link to wikipedia's list of fictional atheists, but it got blocked when I posted it before. I'm not sure if it's going to reappear, hopefully not seven times. So I'm posting a shorter version without the links.

My sister also sent me a link to something called TV Tropes Wikim which has an article about acceptable targets of ridicule on TV, which also mentions atheists. I'm not sure how much I agree with this article, but it's interesting. This article is also relevant to the previous discussion about Imus, I suppose. Again, it got stuck. So you'll have to google it yourself.

"Political correctness is usually stringently observed on television; crossing the wrong minority group can result in anything up to cancellation. But while a show will be very cautious not to offend women, homosexuals, the differently abled or members of any particular race, creed, or color, there are some groups which have no such protection."

"Explicit atheists. On the other hand, it's hard to find a happy, well-adjusted, or optimistic individual on television who is an openly avowed atheist. Not appearing to practice or even mention religion at all is fine for everyone, but it's generally only characters with a fair degree of cynicism and bitterness (sometimes due to a Dead Little Sister or similar tragedy) who can state outright that they don't believe there is a God, or even that they severely doubt God exists. Such characters often reverse or at least reexamine these views, after a Very Special Episode or a Do They Know Its Christmas Time. See, for example, House on House, Mal on Firefly, or the film Signs.
Science Fiction series are often exceptions, since many were written by atheists, and may go so far as to posit a future where mankind "no longer needs gods".
For instance, in Star Trek The Next Generation, an accident with a cultural observer duckblind and the Enterprise's response inadvertently gets a native from the planet's Vulcan like, but primitive, (and thus under Prime Directive restrictions) culture thinking that they are gods. This misapprehension plants the seed for the revival of religion on the planet and Capt. Picard is determined to nip that development in the bud."

-------------
Posted by: bill mulligan at April 23, 2007 03:29 PM:

Most TV shows barely touch on religious matters at all--what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends? (OK, I know Ross dressed up as the Chanukah Armadillo and Phoebe was into reincarnation but spirituality was pretty much an occasional plot point.). Compared to the actual population, the TV world is much more secular."

Friends is not a good example. Comedies in general are probably not good examples, with the exception of Ally MacBeal. But dramas like West Wing, ER, 6 Feet Under, Boston Legal, the Practice, etc. do touch on spiritual and religious issues every once in a while. At the very least at the obligatory Christmas Chapter. It is true that TV characters are usually not devoutly religious, but they always seem to be just spiritual enough, in an ecumenical kind of way.

This is not a condemnation. I'm not the kind of atheist who resents religion. Just an observation.

By the way, the chapter with Ross and Chanuka was interesting to me because it supposedly reflected on Jewish life in the US, of which I'm only vaguely familiar (I have many relatives in the US, but I've met and talked with them only once or twice).

I understand the reason for your own worries a little better now, though, and I'm very sorry to hear about your mother. I can see how that could lead anyone to a "fear that the atheists might be right."

Thanks, Tim. And I hope your mother will get better.

I acknowledge the point you've made, and others have made, that atheists still see meaning in life, because there is always the meaning we humans give to our own lives, by simply being human. But I have to say, it's not enough for me.

It calls to my mind a raging blizzard, uncaring and lethal, and we poor humans will huddle together for a little warmth, to make it a little better. The lack of a supernatural basis for life, the inexistence of an immortal soul, at least to me means that all consolation we get from one another is fleeting and unsatisfatory. It's still touching and necessary, of course, but painful in it's lack of long-term consequence.

(Okay, I'm officially a depressing fella, I know)

I need religion, I really do, and at the same time I'm too doubting and skeptical of the major religions we have. That is my problem.

But I suppose that if someone went to funeral where the majority of the people were atheists and started talking about god having a plan and afterlife, that would be chutzpah too.

Kinda, Micha. I don't think the reciprocal is true. I suppose that, to most atheists, if someone in a funeral of their loved ones started talking about the pleasant afterlife their departed ones are in, the atheist would, at worst, just be annoyed, and at best, he would just ignore it.

But yeah, I agree that it is not polite to talk about your beliefs in such situations when the people grieving around you believe otherwise. But I always thought atheists and agnostics wouldn't be particularly bothered by it (except if the religious person started saying their loved ones are in hell for their lack of belief, or something equally crazy and insensitive, of course).

"I need religion, I really do."

I can understand and respect that. It is a personal need and choice.

"That is my problem."

The problem with atheism is that it talks about what isn't. But you should probably turn your attentio to what is: humanity, family, life, reation, friends etc.

"I'm officially a depressing fella."

Who isn't?

"It calls to my mind a raging blizzard, uncaring and lethal, and we poor humans will huddle together for a little warmth, to make it a little better."

I was in Brazil only for a few weeks and only saw Rio and very briefly the Iguasu Falls. But I suggest you open your window and look out. There should be an advantage to living in a beautiful tropical country. Not that many blizzards.

"The lack of a supernatural basis for life, the inexistence of an immortal soul, at least to me means that all consolation we get from one another is fleeting and unsatisfatory. It's still touching and necessary, of course, but painful in it's lack of long-term consequence."

After you've appreciated the beauty of the natural world, even without the supernatural component, let's talk about the long-term consequences of human life. Human civilization has existed for thousands of years. Thousands of years of families, loves, caring. The long term consequences of that are all around us it a great variety of human creation -- music, poetry, literature, architecture, painting, movies, encompasing every aspect of human life. Many of them were created by religious purposes for religious reasons, but yet they are human creation, from the pyramids and the bible, to Shakespeare, to the next blockbuster movie. The Taj Mahal was built as a monument of the love of a man to a woman.

So, the world, even without the supernatural andafterlife, is very rich and enduring.

There's a book called The Rock of Sysiphus by Alber Camus, which you may have read, that deals with the question of finding meaning in aworld without god by using the metaphor of sysiphus as a person who is doing a meaningless task imposed on him by indifferent gods. Although, I remeber his answer is a little different than the one I gave here.

------------
On the issue of consolation:

I have been fortunate enough not to suffer any major losses in my life as of yet. I don't know if seculr life can really offer enough consolation. I went to talk to my mother and ask her about it. I also believe that when someone suffers a loss his psychological state, his ability to find consolation, goes beyond religion or secularism, and is wholly personal.

I know that for secular people in the society I live in the focus is on remembering. My grandmother published some songs my grandfather wrote or translated after he died.

Yesterday was the memorial day in Israel for the soldiers killed (today is Independence Day), so the issue of lives lost and consolation is all around me and stil lon my mind. And it seems to me the focus is also on remebering and actively commemorating and on just being really sad in a cathartic sort of way. People write songs, people associate songs with somebody they knew, people take songs written by the lost ones and add music for them, they take videos, they tell stories, they make movies, they attend the official ceremonies in which really sad songs are sung, with lines like 'we're all part of the same human fabric', 'each person has a name,' 'we will always remember them,' 'man is like a tree,' and so on. Some have references to angels or afterlife, but only in a metaphorical sense, as a way to think about the ones lost. I suppose that those who actually believe in angels and afterlife probably find a similar consolation in their belief. But my point is that even without actually believing, but only using imagery that conjures the memories of the ones lost, people find consolation. This day is one of the most secular but most profound in our calendar.

(OK, that's my bid for most depressing post).

------------------

"Kinda, Micha. I don't think the reciprocal is true. I suppose that, to most atheists, if someone in a funeral of their loved ones started talking about the pleasant afterlife their departed ones are in, the atheist would, at worst, just be annoyed, and at best, he would just ignore it.

But yeah, I agree that it is not polite to talk about your beliefs in such situations when the people grieving around you believe otherwise. But I always thought atheists and agnostics wouldn't be particularly bothered by it (except if the religious person started saying their loved ones are in hell for their lack of belief, or something equally crazy and insensitive, of course)."

I personaly am the kind of atheist who takes no offense from religion and has no hostility toward religion. But I live in a society in which there is strife between the extremely secular and the extremely religious, the deeply devout and those who just one or two generations ago rejected religion out of ideological motives. I'm afraid there are atheists out there who strongly resent religion, and would especially resent a religious intrusion into their personal grief.

Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother, has blasted the government's efforts to turn his brother's death into a rah rah event, instead of the example of battlefield chaos it probably represents.

But I think the true events of Tillman's death go beyond the hypothetical what-ifs regarding a generally armed society, and the liklihood of accidental or wrongful shootings taking place. Here we have military personel...some of the best-trained combatants we can produce...making the mistake of where fire is coming from, resulting in friendly fire deaths. And this with people trained to not fire unless their targets are confirmed.

How many more such incidents would occur if everyone carried a firearm?

Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother, has blasted the government's efforts to turn his brother's death into a rah rah event, instead of the example of battlefield chaos it probably represents.

That's because this administration has never missed an opportunity to exploit the military personnel for their own benefits, either as "human shields" to silence criticism or as backdrops for their press events for the latest declaration of victory. Of course, you can't really blame Bush for appearing before crowds that are specifically orderd not to boo him.

And yet, there are still people who buy into their bullshit and think he's some kind of hero, like, for example, this moron.

"We feel like emotional wounds and scars are as hard to carry as physical wounds,"

O M G...the president needs a medal because his widdle feelings have been hurt.

Howabout this, instead...if your skin is so thin that namecalling makes you cry...just skip the political arena. I've been called lots of bad names, and I've never felt like I needed a medal.

Den, I may disagree with Bill Thomas' affection for President Bush, but I believe calling him a "moron" is a bit too harsh. For one thing, he is a veteran who was injured during combat while serving his country. He earned that Purple Heart and it's his to do with as he pleases.

Please note, I'm NOT saying he is above criticism. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of calling a veteran names just because you disagree with his politics.

Bobb, the story did say that it was Thomas' idea to give Bush the medal, not the other way around. I know that most of us who post here are predisposed to think ill of Bush, myself included. But what should Bush have done? Refused it? That probably would've broken Thomas' heart (no pun intended). Gracious receiving can be as important as gracious giving, and as a public figure Bush may have felt a need to allow Thomas' to give this gift.

I don't like Bush at all. Think he's the worst president we've had in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean we should impute ill motives for every last thing he does.

For one thing, he is a veteran who was injured during combat while serving his country. He earned that Purple Heart and it's his to do with as he pleases.

And he deserves respect for that. But anything afterwards is fair game and if he does something moronic, then he's a moron.

Bush could have graciously turned it down since he's done nothing to earn it.

I seem to recall the RNC belittling another veteran's purple hearts, even handing out purple bandaids and saying his wounds weren't serious enough to deserve them. What was his name again?

Now we have people giving Bush a medal because his poor widdle feelings have been hurt.

I wonder who's going to give medals to all of the people who have been attacked by the Bush/Rove slander machine (Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, McCain, etc.) to help them get over the emotional scars?

Bill, I agree that it puts Bush in a potentially awkward situation. And Mr.Thomas is free to do with his medal as he sees fit. However, that doesn't make him free from criticism for his actions. As Den reminds us, another purple heart recipient decided to do something with his medal...and it arguably cost him the White House.

I actually don't fault Bush for this at all. It wasn't his idea, although making a big deal by meeting with Mr. Thomas and turning it into a publicity event is his fault. But it not only opens the doors to showcase the hypocrisy of some of the conservative mindset...granted, the Bush administration publicly distanced itself from the SBVs, and certainly not every Bush supported endorses the view of that group. But it does somewhat lesson the importance of true veterans that have earned the Purple Heart through the very real sacrifice of blood. Giving this military commendation to a civlian for suffering what amounts to name calling belittles the sacrifice of true soldiers.

Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM

And he deserves respect for that. But anything afterwards is fair game and if he does something moronic, then he's a moron.

True. But I can't see how giving his Purple Heart to a president he likes and admires makes him "moronic." I agree with you that Bush is neither likable nor admirable, but I see no reason to label others "moronic" merely for disagreeing.

Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM

Bush could have graciously turned it down since he's done nothing to earn it.

Perhaps. And he probably would've crushed one man's dream in so doing.

Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM

I seem to recall the RNC belittling another veteran's purple hearts, even handing out purple bandaids and saying his wounds weren't serious enough to deserve them. What was his name again?

And that's reprehensible. But it's also a separate issue.

Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM

Now we have people giving Bush a medal because his poor widdle feelings have been hurt.

I saw nothing in the article to indicate Bush said his feelings were hurt. This was Thomas' idea.

Posted by: Den at April 24, 2007 02:00 PM

I wonder who's going to give medals to all of the people who have been attacked by the Bush/Rove slander machine (Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, McCain, etc.) to help them get over the emotional scars?

Dunno. Just as I don't know who will give Purple Hearts to any politician who has been smeared by another. Bush didn't invent the practice, and while he is quite good at it -- a dubious honor to be sure -- he is not the only one. It happens on both sides of the aisle.

I think Bush is a truly awful president, but nevertheless I think we should maintain some perspective. "Crying wolf" serves no purpose. And, y'know, Bush has done more than enough stuff for which he deserves to be roundly criticized, without having to resort to condemning him for harmless stuff like this.

Den, I have to agree--one of the things that has helped Bush immensely is the fact that many of his critics have gotten to the point where ANY action he takes is portrayed as evil and craven. Take too long to get to the site of a tragedy--insenstive to the feelings of people. Get there the day it it happens--trying to score political points by exploiting the suffering of others. Accept a medal--evil. Not accept the medal--snubbing a wounded vet. And so on and so on. After a while it gets easy to just roll one's eyes and ignore the constant sniping, which risks letting some genuine and legitimate complaints to slip by.

Accept a medal--evil. Not accept the medal--snubbing a wounded vet.

While I think it would have been better if he had met with the guy and graciously declined it, I think both of you Bills are misunderstanding my point here. I'm not actually criticising Bush for once. I'm criticising Thomas for thinking Bush deserved a medal for taking harsh, if IMHO warranted, criticism from people.

How far should be go on this? Does Brittney Spears deserve a medal for enduring all the jokes about her lack of underwear and head shaving incidents? I'm being facetious here, obviously, but that's why this is so stupid.

I realize it's his medal and he can do whatever he wants with it, but that fact alone doesn't make him immune to criticism. If he truly believes that Bush has suffered emotional scars that are equal to the wounds a combat veteran has received, then he is a moron. I can't think of any other term to describe him.

And if I really wanted to be cynical, I'd speculate that this was another Rovian fake photo op like that guy who drove his trailer all the way from NOLA to the White House just to tell Bush he was doing a heckuva job.

So it's a good think I'm not that cynical.

Den, I think you're being unduly harsh on Thomas. If you support Bush -- which I do not -- you could argue that he has shown courage in the face of criticism. Standing firm on principle in the face of scathing criticism is in no way comparable to being mocked because you shaved your head and went into rehab.

Do I agree with Thomas' feelings about Bush? No. Not even close. I don't think Bush is in any way principled. But I think there's a big leap between "I disagree with you" and "you're a moron." I don't think there's any call to make that leap in Thomas' case.

Well, Bill, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because think giving someone a medal they didn't earn just for taking flak is moronic. As Bobb noted, it comes with the job of being a politician. Don't like it? Take a job where no one will ever criticize you in public.

And I would say that no matter who was president.

As Den reminds us, another purple heart recipient decided to do something with his medal...and it arguably cost him the White House.

Actually, didn't Kerry later say that the medals he threw over the fence were someone elses?
Although, you could argue that there is something in that embellishment to the story that tells you why Kerry lost.

Kerry lost for soooooo many more reasons then that.

Bill Mulligan, I understand you hate Kerry with a passion... but, frankly, he lost by the narrowest of margins to an incumbent wartime president. That says as much, if not more, about Bush's weakness as president than it does about Kerry.

By the way, before anyone misconstrues my prior post: I thought Kerry was a HORRIBLE candidate. But I find it odd that so many people talk about Kerry's political tone-deafness. Until recently, the media acted as though Bush had political perfect pitch when in fact he was just coasting on goodwill created in the aftermath of 9/11. His firing of Rumsfeld after the midterm elections, rather than before them when it could have made a difference, demonstrates that his own ear for political "music" is at the barest minimum as bad as Kerry's.

Bill Mulligan, I understand you hate Kerry with a passion... but, frankly, he lost by the narrowest of margins to an incumbent wartime president. That says as much, if not more, about Bush's weakness as president than it does about Kerry.

I really didn't hate Kerry at all--CARTER is the guy I can't stand. Kerry was a terrible candidate and his nomination was a breathtakingly cynical example of choosing a guy nobody wanted but everyone had been convinced was "electable"...but I have no hatred for the guy.

Your other point is obviously correct--Bush was a very vulnerable candidate. Had he run against Dean or maybe Gore again...the result might have been very different.

Similarly, I've always been amused by the paranoia and awe some liberals have of Karl Rove's supposed evil genius. Pheh! He barely got his man elected in both presidential elections and led his party to disaster in 2006. But to hear some people talk, he's some kind of puppetmaster, controlling the weather and the timing of eathquakes.

The lack of religiousness on television really only tells us ONE THING: that religious content would cause ratings to go down.

Which tells us that America isn't quite as religious as religious activists would have us believe. At the very least, it tells us they don't want much of it in their comedy, drama, news, sports, cartoons, etc.

Hollywood isn't atheist, it's capitalist. They go where the money is, and the "money" says "leave religion out."

Micha, thanks for the kind words. Brazil is indeed a beautiful country. We have our many, many problems, but yes, sometimes we Brazilians forget that we're blessed with living in a place where there is no extreme weather, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, even no wars (though we have lots of crime and considerable poverty, unfortunately).

Your post didn't sound depressing at all. It sounded beautiful, in a way. What I know of Israel is what I get from the news, so it may be very distorted, but it seems to me you guys have a strong sense of identity, of history.

My post may have given the impression that I suffer 24 hours a day pondering those questions, but no, I have to admit that it doesn't affect me all that much in my everyday life. It's just when such things as funerals are mentioned, or when I'm awake late at night, that it bothers me, this tremendous fear of death I have.

You know, I don't blame atheists at all for this supposed "secularization" of Western culture, even though atheist thought sometimes is personally frightening to me. I rather blame the major religions themselves. By refusing to adopt a view on sex and relationships that is minimally in tune with reality and human nature, they lose more and more young people every day. The recent apparent rebirth of religious fervor in the US I think is only an attempt to react to this, that is doomed to fail.

Which tells us that America isn't quite as religious as religious activists would have us believe. At the very least, it tells us they don't want much of it in their comedy, drama, news, sports, cartoons, etc.

You don't see many protagonists that have strong religious devotion on TV for the same reason you also don't have atheists. Both extremes can alienate viewers. It's safer to have characters that are (like Tim Lynch said above) spiritual enough in vague ecumenical way, when the situation calls for it.

It's a rare situation where a decision caused by fear of giving offense is also kinda realistic. Most protagonists in TV are white, young, middle-class, Big City, Americans. The sort of people that in real life also aren't given to extremes in religious oppinions.

TV shows with larger casts will have more diversity, and then you'll have the deeply religious character or the atheist character, but they'll likely not be portrayed as perfect role models. The deeply Catholic usually is troubled and guilt-ridden. The deeply Protestant usually is a hypocritical fanatic. The vocal Atheist is usually cynical and bitter. Ironically, the deeply Muslim or Hindu will be the one most likely to be portrayed positively, because the writers and producers will fear to appear bigoted.

It's real easy to say in hindsight that Kerry was a terrible candidate. He won the nomination basically on his resume of being a decorated veteran. Unfortunately for him, he ran during the era of television and his glaring personality problems (ie, he had no personality) overshone his resume.

As for Rove, I agree his "genius" is overstated, both on the left and the right.

One of the things that amazes me is that the republicans have proven to be so astoundingly bad at governing and so transparently corrupt* over the past six years and yet they still managed to hold onto power for as long as they have. If the democrats had managed to put together even a halfway decent platform and run a candidate who wasn't a droning technocrat, they could have retaken both Congress and the White House in 2004.

Part of the problem the democrats have, I think dates back to the Vietnam era. That war nearly ripped the party apart and they really have never fully recovered. The GOP, on the other hand, have maintained a stronger sense of party discipline and it has paid off for them, particularly in the past 10 years.

Will Iraq have the same effect on the GOP that Vietnam did on the democrats? I doubt it, simply because the GOP are more prone to maintain disciplined ranks (a less charitable way of putting it would be "herd mentality"). On the other hand, the GOP are down in the polls on nearly every issue, and if the democrats could manage to get their act together for a change, they have an excellent chance of gaining the White House and widening their control of Congress.

*In fairness, the democrats are equally corrupt in most matters, but they at least can run a government.

Strangely, the best shows that I can think of do involve characters that express a faith (real or fictional) or at least discuss them. TV has a long history of hit shows that have regular characters who have their religion displayed in. Maybe it's just the ones I like.

More on atheism in the media:

The religious punditry is really engaging in some seriously blatant LYING about this issue. They characterize anything that isn't "religious" as atheistic, which is ridiculous and extremist. And opportunistic.

Another conveniently misguiding argument is that every attack on the CHURCH is a disbelief in God. That also is ridiculous (and opportunistic). Churches have EARNED the skepticism of the public. They have claimed ultimate knowledge in all things and been proven wrong (most particularly in science). They have held absolute spiritual power and wielded it for wholly non-spiritual purposes. A great many people do not appreciate the lust for power and lack of sincerity that many Christian churches have shown. This does NOT mean that all these people are atheists. (It simply means that the churches in question have failed to make the word "church" and "God" synonymous.)

But religious leaders cannot afford to acknowledge that important distinction. It might put them under a spotlight they'd much rather avoid.

Bill Mulligan asked: "what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends?"

There was an episode that involved a funeral, and the characters were discussing the afterlife. Paraphrasing from memory:

***

Joey: "Me, I think that when you die, you die. That's it, you're wormfood."

Everyone else looks at him aghast, specifically the people who are mourning the loss of a close relative.

Joey: "What?"

***

So, based on that I'd say he's an atheist.

Posted by: Rene at April 25, 2007 12:06 AM:

"My post may have given the impression that I suffer 24 hours a day pondering those questions, but no, I have to admit that it doesn't affect me all that much in my everyday life. It's just when such things as funerals are mentioned, or when I'm awake late at night, that it bothers me, this tremendous fear of death I have."

I understand completely. thousands of years of religions and philosophies of every kind, atheistic and not, and still there's no perfect solution to these questions, yet life continues. I hope I helped a little.

I'm certaiin I know even less of Brasil than you do of Israel. Both countries are probably more complex than their stereotypes.

"it seems to me you guys have a strong sense of identity, of history."

Yes and no. We are actually extremely uncertain about our identity. It has and is questioned repeatedly by us and by others. However, ironically, the ongoing need to think about our identity perhaps strengthens it compared to other peoples who take their identity for granted.

"You know, I don't blame atheists at all for this supposed "secularization" of Western culture, even though atheist thought sometimes is personally frightening to me. I rather blame the major religions themselves. By refusing to adopt a view on sex and relationships that is minimally in tune with reality and human nature, they lose more and more young people every day. The recent apparent rebirth of religious fervor in the US I think is only an attempt to react to this, that is doomed to fail."

The modern world and the secularism that came with it have resulted in a several cultural reactions such as post-modernism, new-age, and Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Hindu fundementalism. You are correct that they are naive if they think they can stop modernity and keep or regain the power they had in the past without adapting. However, the people who thought that religion and spiritualism will vanish before the powers of modernism were also wrong (although I myself am not spiritual). As usual there's a need for some balance.

From my brief visit to Rio back in 2000 it seemed to me that Brasil was pretty religious. Certainly compared to Buenos Aires, which I also visited on the same trip (but only for a few days). I city Cathedral in Rio was full, the one in Buenos Aires was empty (although maybe because it was a holiday).

"TV shows with larger casts will have more diversity, and then you'll have the deeply religious character or the atheist character, but they'll likely not be portrayed as perfect role models. The deeply Catholic usually is troubled and guilt-ridden. The deeply Protestant usually is a hypocritical fanatic. The vocal Atheist is usually cynical and bitter."

Yes, this was my original thought.

"They characterize anything that isn't "religious" as atheistic, which is ridiculous and extremist. And opportunistic."

this post reflects the common attitude that atheism is a flaw of some sort, while just being hostile to established religion but not to spirituality is OK.

Den -
Incidentally, Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates and they have a law which requires every able-bodied man to own and maintain a fully automatic weapon as all men are considered part of their national militia.

I know it's a week late, but an article appeared on Yahoo this morning about the Swiss and their guns... and the push for gun control laws there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/lf_nm/swiss_suicide_dc