VA Tech Shooting...

[Tonichelle]

Lad - the shooting, as far as they knew, was a domestic dispute gone horribly bad and they felt at that time it was not about the school

it amazes me how many people say 'it's so simple' - in hindsight 9-11 was so simple - you can monday morning quarterback for years but that doesn't help matters, and it villifies teh wrong people.

Also this is an open campus not everyone lives on teh dorms. There is no possible way to get teh news out to everyone... they reported it on the campus radio network (which I'm sure *ALL* students listen to ha ha ha) they sent an email (that big of a bulk email though wouldn't go out fast enough, they know that now) but who's to say that people would read it in time even if it got to their boxes in time.

Even if they were to have a siren blaring, who's to say people would believe it. Maybe it's just a Frat boy prank (because those never happen, ya know).

The only way to prevent these things is make campuses into prisons... oh, wait, prisons have these problems from time to time too.

Just to sort of back up what RD said - just got an email from UAA - apparently something like this could never happen on our campus...

riiiiggggghhhhhhhhhttttttt how many times have I seen gun racks with guns in them... ON CAMPUS? lol... it's a no gun zone, but everyone ignores it because Alaskans are normally 'hunters' (though UAA is being filled with Anti-Alaskan Rights people ugh) and they 'forget' to put their gun in the house during hunting season (my dad's forgotten once in a blue moon too when dropping me off in grade school lol but he was never PARKED at teh school with a gun in teh truck)

just thought it was funny that they are so sure, just as I'm sure VA Tech was SO SURE... and yet the campus is right across the street from the Juvenille detention center... and we weren't in lock down the last time the kids broke out (stealing a guard's firearm in teh process)

yup... no way that could happen

 

[SeaniBu]

as far as they knew, was a domestic dispute gone horribly bad and they felt at that time it was not about the school

That is the whole point. "as far as they knew" thinking. None of it was without a possibility he was on campus, they just thought. They ran the risk that he was at large, hence endangering.

People will convolute it to say "not so simple" or "hindsight" but it still comes down to what they did and didn't do at the time there was a POSSIBLE threat. We all like to think they did what they could, but obviously they didn't - and the law enforcement hardly ever does. EOS

Whether the idea of a "lock down" would have worked or not we'll never know because they didn't do what they COULD have.

Even if they were to have a siren blaring, who's to say people would believe it. Maybe it's just a Frat boy prank (because those never happen, ya know).

Yah, there is a good attitude, don't try it because it MIGHT not work. No sense in TRYING to warn people.

 

[Piel]

My neice lives near Blacksburg in Roanoke and her hubby is a VT grad. There are more commuters that attend there than students who live on campus. You know I think people do the best they can under the circumstances. Until we make it harder to get access to weapons this will continue in some form. My personal feeling is that recreational hunters can always find another hobby. Pleasure should not come before public safety. No one HAS to have firearms unless you are in law enforcement. People who depend on hunting for their food need to undergo psycological testing to make sure they are fit to have firearms for hunting.

 

[Tonichelle]

my family is not a recreational hunting family. what do you suggest we do?

with the evil in teh world, there's no way around people that DON'T deserve to have the right to own a firearm not to get it

somehow I don't see Al Qaeda and other networks of violence just dropping their guns... as long as others have access - no matter how illegal - the wrong people will have guns...

Do I believe there should be gun laws - absolutely.
Do I think we should not own guns - no. For reasons above.

 

[Piel]

Toni,

People who depend on hunting for their food need to undergo psycological testing to make sure they are fit to have firearms for hunting.

That is what I suggest. People who have no evil intentions should not mind being tested yearly and investigated thoroughly. I know people will still get them. But if if it keeps one person from being killed..........it is worth it. A few years ago my brother in laws son got upset when his wife left him, got out his hunting rifle, killed her, the new boyfriend, and then himself. Todd loved hunting, but he could still have had a very good life without hunting. If he had not had a gun three people would still be alive and Amanda (10) and Caleb (8) would still have their parents. It was too convenient in a fit of anger for him to just go get the gun and fire it. I think that family members and friends need to be more agressive and not afraid to offend people who find themselves in stressful situations. If only Todd's family or friends who knew he was very upset had taken the rifle away for "safekeeping". this tragedy could have been prevented. We are all our brother's and sister's keepers.........especially when they are not able to take care of themselves. Would he have been p***** that someone took his gun............you bet. BUT, he would have gotten over it.

 

[heyang]

Here's a link to an article about politics and gun control.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_go_co/virginia_tech_gun_control_14

If you want a regular gun, I won't argue your right to have one for defense, but why do people feel they should be able to purchase semi-automatic and automatic weapons. They cause major carnage. I also think that everyone who purchases a gun must be required to go to safety classes - anything that could delay a gun getting into someone's hands that shouldn't have one.

From Wikepedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms

"This right is often presented in the United States as synonymous with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, although this belief is controversial among some factions and is not subscribed to by all.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Provides for unenumerated rights, including implicitly a right to keep and bear arms and a right to have arms for defense. "


Note that the 2nd amendment (and therefore not part of the original Constitution), the right to bear arms is in relation to supporting a regulated militia.

The Ninth amendment seems to be the one that people feel entitles them. A lot of deaths occur due to accidental shooting.

When my cousin was probably about 8 or so, he shot himself in the finger with his father's handgun. He was lucky that it didn't hit his younger brother who was in the room and that it just nicked his finger. My grandmother was home with them, but she didnt' speak English. The neighbors were the ones that called the police. The Police took the gun away - it was at that point that my uncle realized that it was stupid to keep a loaded gun in a house with keys. BTW, this was back in the mid 1970's.

As for locking down the dorms, it might've just resulted in their locking him inside the dorm to cause mayhem instead.

Also, it's a wide open campus - pretty impossible to secure. He was a student at the school and would have just blended in. As a security expert on the news pointed out, you can do security drills, but in this case the gunman would have known the plan, too.

Based on what I've heard today, it seems like he entered Norris Hall after class had started. Not a lot of people would have noticed him entering the building.

 

[Wolfgang]

I'm not a hunter - would never even dream of hurting an animal other than survival or self defense - neither am I a member of any gun lobby/association or anything of the sort,but an unarmed population can be a dangerous thing (for the population, that is....).
The very first thing any and all dictators do is disarm the people - sometimes even the police and military......or at least those branches thereof not loyal to them.....
Which is why the founding fathers wisely created the 2nd amendment.
You can ban all you want - guns, knives, forks, spoons, pillows - no law will prevent a frustrated loner nut from going ballistic when he or she goes off the deep end.

 

[SeaniBu]

Which is why the founding fathers wisely created the 2nd amendment.
You can ban all you want - guns, knives, forks, spoons, pillows - no law will prevent a frustrated loner nut from going ballistic when he or she goes off the deep end.

ITA, but lest we forget what it says IN FULL. Not in parts to try and justify everyone running around with guns.

Thank you Heyang -

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Provides for unenumerated rights, including implicitly a right to keep and bear arms and a right to have arms for defense. "


Note that the 2nd amendment (and therefore not part of the original Constitution), the right to bear arms is in relation to supporting a regulated militia.

It is like people just want to ignore the intent of that amendment. It has a intent. And that has to be FULLY understood opposed to just using the last part of it to fit the desire of people carrying weapons.

As for locking down the dorms, it might've just resulted in their locking him inside the dorm to cause mayhem instead.

Also, it's a wide open campus - pretty impossible to secure. He was a student at the school and would have just blended in. As a security expert on the news pointed out, you can do security drills, but in this case the gunman would have known the plan, too.

Based on what I've heard today, it seems like he entered Norris Hall after class had started. Not a lot of people would have noticed him entering the building.

A "lock down" does not necessarily mean "locking doors, more realistically telling people that they need to stay where they are until the authorities are able to secure the area.

If he entered Norris hall After classes had started, then the "anyone out and about campus needs to be pulled aside and questioned" would most definitely hindered the opportunity for him to enter the hall.

It maybe GI Joe, but knowing is half the battle. But not "alerting" and asking everyone to stay put until the area was found as secure made everyone unaware and they immediately were loosing half the battle. "Didn't want to cause panic is also silly, because we all know there was panic at the end anyway.

The real definitive will be what he did in that hour and 45 minutes before he gained access to Norris. Unless he went straight over there and was already in the building then a "lock down" would have stopped him from gaining "unnoticed" entry.
Hind sight is 20/20 so why we choose not to use it?

I think the law did all they could once he was in Norris, but prior it is obvious they did not. Would it have helped - we will not know. Could it have helped - duh. A chance to save lives and find him as soon as possible was not taken, there are very few situations where trying to find someone is helped by letting them blend in with the crowd.

I do have a feeling that the publicity the killers get after their despicable actions occur is only going to feed the fire of other wackos doing it to get the same "glory." If they tell us about the person and not supply their name and Photos, then I THINK this would lessen the desire for others to feel they will gain the same glory.

btw, securing an area depends on the people helping to do so. It is possible if people cooperate. And MORE secure is better then NO secure attempt at all. Here again, do we just want to say it will never work and not try to save people just because we THINKI too? Doing nothing will get what results? Questions of what if and guesses. Trying gives information at the very least.

 

[gio]

somehow I don't see Al Qaeda and other networks of violence just dropping their guns... as long as others have access - no matter how illegal - the wrong people will have guns...

They have access, because the arms market is big. Plenty of US, of Euro countries, Russian or Chinese arms went directly to violent networks in the World. Even to enemies of these countries. This is prooved. There should be more control of arms producing and selling. It is obvious that these networks will never drop their guns, but if severe limitations were in place, things would have been different.
I don't think the problem could be solved completely. As you have said the technology is there. But I think that a lot of terrorist incidents should not occur, if severe limitations were in action.

As of arms selling to citizens, I think that psychological testes should be done, before a person could buy a gun. And also severe age limitations.

 

[gio]

Lad - the shooting, as far as they knew, was a domestic dispute gone horribly bad and they felt at that time it was not about the school

I've heared that the police found a message written by the killer, where he says the he hates the rich students and the professors and that he was depressed. So he had psychological problems and should not have owned a gun. There should be limitations on who can buy arms. People with psycho problems should not.

 

[SeaniBu]

There has been a student here in the area that was pulled into custody for some of the same comments that the VT students screen plays were saying. So one good indication some are learning. I have a hard time believing - even though it is pointless now - that the teacher who said she was concerned and told him to seek counseling said anything at all. If she really was concerned she would have went to the police after the facility (which have not confirmed her "report" to them) said don't worry about it. She, I think feels like she could have done more and is placing the blame. Hind sight once again but in my neck of the woods they learned.

 

[Wolfgang]

Agree that there should be some sort of test - could be done by the local high schools, the gun shops, continuing ed, whatever - for people wanting to buy any kind of firearm.
It is mandatory in some states that you attend a 'safety seminar'.
Rationally speaking, a gun is very much the same as a car.
A tool.
A very useful tool generally, a very dangerous one in the wrong hands.

 

[Tonichelle]

Rationally speaking, a gun is very much the same as a car.
A tool.
A very useful tool generally, a very dangerous one in the wrong hands.

:agree: :agree:

 

[Ptichka]

If she really was concerned she would have went to the police after the facility (which have not confirmed her "report" to them) said don't worry about it.

I disagree. She did not know he actually owned guns - she reported him because she thought he was disturbed and needed counseling, not because she thought he would go on a killing spree. Also, it has been reported that she did have one-on-one sessions with him; she was so concerned she worked out a system with her assistant so the latter would know when to call in security. In general, I am weary of categorizing people based on their writing/ artwork; such approach might have well locked away Goya or Kafka.

 

[SeaniBu]

I disagree. She did not know he actually owned guns - she reported him because she thought he was disturbed and needed counseling, not because she thought he would go on a killing spree. Also, it has been reported that she did have one-on-one sessions with him; she was so concerned she worked out a system with her assistant so the latter would know when to call in security. In general, I am weary of categorizing people based on their writing/ artwork; such approach might have well locked away Goya or Kafka.

Excellent points, thank you.:agree:

Yet????

she was so concerned she worked out a system with her assistant so the latter would know when to call in security.

Were they really the best judges of that? Really could they be? Quite a responsibility to assume of them don't you think? Sounds like the concern was only for their own personal safety as well. The fact they thought they could recognize the difference between a dangerous person or a troubled young man that wasn't going to harm anyone. Another lessened learned, that is not a good idea for them to assume they would know "when" it was going to be a problem. FGS I don't remember hearing she was a councilor. AAMOF I heard her say last night she asked him in passing - pulled him aside in the halls - if he was going to counseling. She said he said yes, and she believed him - yes believed the troubled young man. ??? hunh?

And if she was concerned, it might have been a good idea to find out about whether he owned guns or not??? Just thoughts.

I guess that sounds like they are somewhat responsible, for they took it on themselves to decide if he was a danger to society and they were wrong??????? Let's hope the next time someone tries to make that decision they at least get council from more qualified people - at least a few more minds involved. Not that I think it is right, but it sounds like the assumption of responsibility is going to fall in their laps and there is going to be direct suites filed against them.

So what did we learn? If they are "disturbed" maybe we need to check and see if they have guns? Make sure they don't have guns? Goya or Kafka shouldn't have guns either?

And to tell you the truth, Goya and Kafka's work IMO would not have been a big loss to society if they weren't allowed. I don't think it is right, but I am not sure I see the harm in "playing it safe" and keeping the "disturbed mind" out of the public and more in the "watched environment. We might suffer as a society without that "freedom", but I don't think the works that could be found "questionable" would hurt if they never were publicized either.

And before anyone goes jumping on my case please be aware of what I said I feel and what might be as well - in BF. Thanks.

I am not trying to point fingers, just bring some uncomfortable reality to light. Sounds like a lot we could learn, and in some of the cases have learned but still fail to do anything about it.

And that is nice that you used Francisco, for I believe I used him as an example a while back in regards to "obscenity.":agree:

I really hope everyone doesn't hate me, but surface thoughts I hear and think "magma, there has got to be magma." I maybe wrong, and it may not help, but at least I am doing something - meant in regards to the law enforcement at VT and their lack of action.

 

[Tonichelle]

I disagree. She did not know he actually owned guns - she reported him because she thought he was disturbed and needed counseling, not because she thought he would go on a killing spree. Also, it has been reported that she did have one-on-one sessions with him; she was so concerned she worked out a system with her assistant so the latter would know when to call in security. In general, I am weary of categorizing people based on their writing/ artwork; such approach might have well locked away Goya or Kafka.

MSNBC has been talking about this very fact... they said if you looked at most of the 'great writers' they could be said to be in need of being committed...

From the time we're toddlers we're told to use our words to vent, to acknowledge why we feel teh way we do, etc. If writing alone is what it takes to put people away I don't think a single one of us would be classified as sane... we all go through moments of 'I hate teh world'... who's to say we will ever act on it (I'll admit I get fed up!).

Again - we can sit and monday morning quarterback all day long. Next time something like this happens I hope you that seem to think it's 'so simple' will send a telephone number their way so that they CAN better take care of a situation.


ETA - not sure if anyone else is reporting it but NBC apparently was sent a letter and video from the shooter during that two hour period of non-violence... they recieved it either last night or this morning... so it would sound like they're still piecing together where he was and what he was doing during that period of time... who knows where the heck he was.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

From some responses I have read, I believe if we can not control the purchase of guns we should allow everyone the right to purchase one and carry it to school so that revenge can take place immediately. That would be the American way, and the way we won the West.

Joe

 

[Tonichelle]

If you go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ you will see some of the photos the shooter sent...

just because a small few of evil people use the guns to mow down innocent bystanders, it does not mean any and all gun owners will. I do feel we need to enforce the gun laws, and maybe even a pysch eval would be okay... but I'm not sure that would completely solve the problem anymore than taking guns away entirely.

oh and the story that follows teh photo on msnbc's home page - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

 

[blue dog]

I am shocked--disgusted even
After Monday, they plan to do this?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/national/main2699800.shtml

 

[Tonichelle]

I was hoping that bit of news would be ignored lol... just because I'd heard the rumors and hate to see them get any notice at all. They are disgusting group of individuals

and before anyone forgets - they're NOT affiliated with any Baptist network!!!

I haven't heard of any of the victims even being gay, so I'm not sure why they're even going to be picketting with their anti-gay crap...

The more that is coming to light about the shooter - the more I feel that someone did drop the ball when it comes to him... but after reading People magazine and how harsh they were about schools that DID drop mentally ill students the schools really are between a rock and a hard place.

MSNBC's reporters and 'experts' are now calling for stricter laws that enforce drugs on the mentally ill, but I hope it never goes that far... consider it used to be practiced that way there was a lot of mistreatment of the laws and a lot of 'sane' people were treated less than humanely.