As I feared, the previous thread on Virginia Tech is rapidly escalating into partisan politics discussion. So I am asking that all posters on that thread restrict their commments to extending condolences or, if they actually knew Jamie (as friends typically called Christopher) share their recollections. In the meantime, feel free to use this space to discuss broader societal issues.
I think here’s what we can expect to see over the next months, as we move beyond shock and disbelief into anger.
1) Law suits filed by aggrieved families against Virginia Tech authorities for their failure to lock down the campus in the intervening two hours, while investigations are held to determine whether Virginia Tech authorites were to blame.
2) Considering the theme of parental abuse that reveals itself in the shooter’s unproduced play scripts, investigations into the shooter’s parents to determine if there was indeed child abuse present. If so, possible law suits on the basis that their abuse resulted in their son’s actions and therefore they bear responsibility.
3) Advocates of gun control holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be made stricter, considering that the shooter acquired his weapon legally.
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.
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.
PAD
• 
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 pìššëd, 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 fûçkëd 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 bášŧárd’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 áššhølë 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 šhìŧ 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 “bûllšhìŧ” 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, hëll 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? Hëll 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 áššhølë, but it’s your problem, not mine.”
And you wonder why so many are against áššhølëš 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