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
• 
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 dámņ 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 ášš. 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 ášš.
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 …
Hëll 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 jáçkášš 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.
Ðámņ, 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 dámņ 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 fággøŧ) 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 dámņëd 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 hëll 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 dámņ videos to further give him his ’15 minutes’.
*************
SER: Agreed. I don’t give a dámņ 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.