Of course not, Gun happy virginia can't be bothered with these 'infingements'. The kid was an obvious basket case. The strange thing is that this isn't happening more often ie backlash against oligarchic theft of the nation.
This is a problem that the looting classes will increasingly have to face, disturbed furious 'little people' losing it. And unlike this hapless nutcase, their 'target selection' is bound to improve.
The Motorhead Lemmie lyric, "Come on Baby, Eat the Rich, bite down on the son of a bitch" may take on a life of its own. I see a terrrible and lethal backlash as an inevitable outcome of loopy greed run amok.
Posted by Chris Rich at April 18, 2007 04:11 PMHell, my undergrad school accepted a kid who had been through some rough times with drugs. He had cleaned up but his mental state was not good.
He lasted about a month and half. He would come to me (I was RA) and tell me about how he knew someone was getting into his mail box. I asked had he given his mailbox key to anyone. He said no, but he thought they had broken into his dorm room to get it. Note after further discussion the explanation to him was clear. Someone had broken into his locked dorm, stole only his key, got in his mailbox and returned the key to his dorm room.
Full-blown paranoia set in at some point and I heard his parents had to come talk him out of a motel room he barricaded himself into at the end of his stay.
Other little incidents during my tenure as an RA.
Suicide threats. I got to go check the kids room not knowing what I would find.
The kid wandering down the dorm hall, pissed and taking chunks out of the drywall with a machete.
The drunk highschool girl who was hanging out on campus waving a broken bottle around.
The heartbroken and drunk kid who slammed his fist into wall and busted up his hand. I took him to the hospital myself.
Talked the car keys away from a completely shit-faced kid one night as he was about to get in his car and drive off.
If we lived in a fair and ironic world, a worker would have "gone postal" and mowed him down while he was trying to mail his Cho info pack to NBC.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2007 05:08 PMAnswers to the questions.
1. A weapon is only considered "concealed" if the person is carrying it at the time hidden from view. This requires a police officer catching the person with the concealed weapon. Also, there is no good reason to have university police notified of weapon purchases, since it is not illegal to buy a gun as long as gun laws are followed. This would be a violation of the privacy of the student. It is also only an issue if the student has the gun on campus and if there are university rules against having weapons on campus. Again, this requires the student being caught with the weapon on campus. If it is wrong to profile someone based on race or religion, which I believe is wrong, then it is wrong to profile someone based on a gun purchase.
2. Again there is no good reason to do this. It is not illegal for a college student to buy a gun as long as they follow the established gun laws. Again, this would be an invasion of the student's privacy. Again, it only concerns University police if the student has the gun on campus. Meaning the person has to be caught on campus in possession of the weapon. Purchasing a gun does not imply intent to use it against another person in a manner such as the VT shootings. This would singling out people for special treatment, which would be wrong.
3. Colleges and universities have have mental health facilities for just this reason. To help students with mental problems. In this case the local police knew that Cho had problems. They were aware of the situation. It obviously didn't help. And, yes there is a requirement for metal health professionals to work with police when there is possible danger.
Take some time to think about these things a bit before you post them next time.
Posted by Douglas Keester at April 18, 2007 05:29 PMJaysus, Soto! How is it possible to believe that these gun control laws you love so much would have kept this sick bastard from obtaining any weapon he wanted?
It's that liberal mind at work again ---fetishizing laws on paper when the only true arbiter is a man's character.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 18, 2007 05:30 PMRich:
This is a problem that the looting classes will increasingly have to face, disturbed furious 'little people' losing it. And unlike this hapless nutcase, their 'target selection' is bound to improve.
You're a disgusting person who's probably already got a laminated hand-shrine to this sick bastard. Recognize that you are degeneracy itself.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 18, 2007 05:33 PMThe questions you pose are a bit silly. A University is like a city. Now ask yourself, does any of this happen at the city level? No.
Cho was in a full-blown psychotic break. He felt persecuted. His statements about being nailed to the cross support that. He had delusions of grandeur, associating his own self-importance with that of Jesus. He had paranoid delusions in thinking christians were coming to control his mind and "others" were out to get him. The boy was schizophrenic.
All of the other odd behaviors leading up to the tragedy point to the diagnosis, and he was at the average age for early onset of the first true break. To sum it up: He felt he was protecting himself, and from his statements, protecting others. And he made sure to tell others so they could see the importance and rationality of his acts. There really is nothing more to see here.
And for the forensic psychologists out there: His room was a mess, so he was disorganized. And he mentioned Columbine, so he indentified with those shooters. Blah blah blah blah blah. There. You can collect your fees and be happy.
Posted by phidipides at April 18, 2007 05:42 PMIn a gun soaked and gun worshipping society, with millions of gun owner/lobbyists constantly on the look-out to ensure that their second amendment rights (whatever they may be) are fully and completely uninfringed, mentally disturbed people will continue to acquire guns and use them for periodic mayhem such as this.
Too many cracks to slip through, too many people who just don't care about the inevitable consequences of a society awash in guns.
That's Murica, and it's not ever gonna change. No way, no how. It's a putrid, uncivilized state of affairs, and we're stuck with it.
Posted by euzoius at April 18, 2007 06:06 PMThe founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, understood the harms resulting from the type of policy created at Virginia Tech. In his "Commonplace Book," Jefferson copied a passage from Cesare Beccaria, the founder of criminology, which was as true on Monday as it always has been:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
The great Thomas Jefferson knew all the way back there around the early 1800's that "gun free zones " were wrong. The mayor of Nagasaki was recently, last week murdered by a gun. Peaceful Japanese society, no guns permited, yet he was murdered.
In February of this year a young man walked past the sign prohibiting him from carrying a gun on the premises and began shooting people who moments earlier were leisurely shopping at Trolley Square. He killed five.
Fortunately, someone else -- off-duty Ogden, Utah, police officer Kenneth Hammond -- also did not comply with the mall's rules. After hearing "popping" sounds, Mr. Hammond investigated and immediately opened fire on the gunman. With his aggressive response, Mr. Hammond prevented other innocent bystanders from getting hurt. He bought time for the local police to respond, while stopping the gunman from hunting down other victims.
Or at a Pearl, Miss., high school in 1997, where assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a handgun from his car and apprehended a school shooter. Or what happened at Appalachian Law School, in Grundy, Va., in 2002, when a mass murder was stopped by two students with law-enforcement experience, one of whom retrieved his own gun from his vehicle. Or in Edinboro, Pa., a few days after the Pearl event, when a school attack ended after a nearby merchant used a shotgun to force the attacker to desist. Law-abiding citizens routinely defend themselves with firearms. Annually, Americans drive-off home invaders a half-million times, according to a 1997 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In Utah, there is no "gun-free schools" exception to the licensed carry law. In K-12 schools and in universities, teachers and other adults can and do legally carry concealed guns. In Utah, there has never been a Columbine-style attack on a school. Nor has there been any of the incidents predicted by self-defense opponents -- such as a teacher drawing a gun on a disrespectful student, or a student stealing a teacher's gun.
Israel uses armed teachers as part of a successful program to deter terrorist attacks on schools. Buddhist teachers in southern Thailand are following the Israeli example, because of Islamist terrorism.
After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., long-time gun control advocates, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), agreed that making airplane cockpits into "gun-free zones" had made airplanes much more dangerous for everyone except hijackers. Corrective legislation, supported by large bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, allowed pilots to carry firearms, while imposing rigorous gun-safety training on pilots who want to carry.
"...dangerous for everyone except hijackers." That's what Senator Boxer said then, if only she remembered she said it now. Democrats seem to want to make things dangerous for everyone but the criminal or terrorist even to the extent as changing the wording away from the "war on terror" to something else more tolerable.
This murderer followed the law, provided truthful representations and was able to purchase two guns lawfully. He checked himself into that institution thus preventing him, providing him an out for not reporting it on the gun registration docs, 'willfully' is the word. He did nothing unlawful until he began shooting. Sign, sign everywhere...nobody had any legal right to do anything to this individual until he started this. Schools, companies have no rights to any info for questions possed by Steve. All thanks to Democrats worried about privacy rights. Your allies the ACLU always want to protect these privacy rights.
Amazing Steve, truly amazing. Surely you can see the folly of your'questions'.
Posted by peter at April 18, 2007 06:47 PMCho felt like he was shit on over and over again and he was going to get even. He blames the rich and privileged around him for his misery. No doubt he was deranged and the percieved psychological pressure he was under pushed him over the edge leading to the murder spree.
I think perhaps Chris Rich has a point. America has become a country where wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few. More and more citizens find themselves unable to participate in the American dream. Well paying jobs with benefits are harder to obtain and keep. Personal debt burdens are taking their toll and home forclosures are rising at an alarming rate.
People with no job, no home and no credit will be under tremendous psychological pressure. A certain percentage of these Americans will snap, just like Cho, and will try to get even by committing acts of senseless violence upon those who they blame for their fate.
Add to this the current national policy that violence is the best way to deal with disagreements, as negotiation are only for the weak and one has a prescription for more high profile horrific acts of revenge.
Posted by at April 18, 2007 07:10 PMI'm not sure those are the right questions Steve.
Regardless, it's a futile argument anyway. The gun lobby in this country is too strong. Not worth even getting into the ring.
You just have to hope you don't find yourself in the cross hairs of the next crazy.
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 07:18 PMS wht, Ch ws lftd hvnt?
[Editor: ignore=off]Anon,
I think it's hard at this point to assume that societal iniquities contributed to his mental problems rather than his mental problems leading him to perceive societal iniquities.
But there certainly is a predilection in this country towards using violence to 'solve' problems. The recent use of deadly force in self defense laws in Florida certainlt come to mind. We are without doubt a shoot first ask questions later society.
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 07:28 PMI have to agree with snark on this one. This kid was in a full blown psychotic meltdown and he might have come up with any explanation for what he was doing from the evils of rich kids to gamma rays from the moon. But what explains the rash of attacks on homeless people by non-homeless and middle class kids? Or the killing of James Byrd in Texas by upper class kids? This country is incredibly violent and although its underreported violence against outliers, homeless, the disabled, the elderly, and prostitutes and single women is a huge part of the everyday for lots of people. This kid destroyed a lot of lives, all at once. He was clearly deranged. What is the excuse of the kids who roll homeless bums?
aimai
Posted by aimai at April 18, 2007 07:42 PMDouglas Keester:
If it is against university ordinances or laws to have a gun on campus, then why shouldn't the university police know when a student with a court-ordered psychiatric commitment has a gun permit? And if you know anything about college student health resources and mental health capabilities like I do, you would know that your smug response is utter bullshit. By the way, where is your son or daughter enrolled?
Toby and the rest of you: In this time when our privacy has been shredded by a government that wants to know stuff about us for far less consequential reasons, why in hell would you think someone with a documented court psychiatric commitment has a right to privacy to have a gun on campus in violation of university laws?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 18, 2007 07:49 PMIn 1990 and 1991 it was required by Air Force regulations for an active officer to carry a side-arm in a combat zone. What most people don't undertand is the reason you carry a sidearm. If you are shot down, and going to be taken prisoner in a very nasty situation, it is the obvious way out. You can't take on five guys with AK-47's with a .45 caliber Colt. It is soley to give you an option when things look very bad.
When I left the Air Force in 1992, I returned my sidearm, and all clips to the Air Force Armory. I have never touched a weapon of any sort since that day, nor will I.
Posted by tempus at April 18, 2007 07:59 PMHow much of Cho's personality behavior was formed during his first 8.5 years growing up in South Korea?
Anyone that has known me for life will pretty much vouch for the fact that I was already a complete ass hole by the age of 9.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2007 08:17 PMAccording to VT, nobody had a right to have a gun on campus. "Innocent till proven guilt" ring a bell? A university has no business knowing whether a person has a gun permit or not. Disclosure, there's no university right to know anything about this person from the courts. Admission policies are where most if not all info about character are found. I can see the ACLU now lining up ready to tackle any institution requiring full disclosure along the lines you're suggesting.
I have two kids living on campus right now. Sure, I'm concerned for their safety. There's not the law and there will not be a law to guarentee, Guarentee their safety. The legal and scholarly institutions just don't get to talk with each other very much. Never has, and up until those civil liberties are modified to permit this, never will. Does Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have the balls to modify these civil liberties. I don't think so. None of the Democrats in elected office do. Not even that Democratic representative from northern Virginia.
And you people would roast, royally roast any Republican that proposed modifications needed to permit what you seem to be asking.
Posted by peter at April 18, 2007 08:18 PMwhy in hell would you think someone with a documented court psychiatric commitment has a right to privacy to have a gun on campus in violation of university laws?
Your questions don't imply only that scenerio.
Question 1 implies that University police should somehow be informed by someone that any student matriculated at that institution legally purchased a gun. How practical is that? Is a gun dealer responsible to ask a buyer where he/she goes to college? Should they be asking about where they are employed too?
Question 2 is a real privacy issue. Do you really believe that local or federal police should be inquiring where gun buyers go to school so they can inform colleges that one of their students legally purchased a gun? Should the police be informing an employer that an employee just bought a gun? How about neighbors?
Question 3 I have less problem with. If a court determines that an individual has mental issues that make them a potential threat to others I think that's something that should be made known to officials, mental health oficials at the least, police officials potentially, at the school. Although it's a fine line. One can have mental issues that incline one to violence and never act on them. If one does not first run afowl of the law one should not forfeit the assumption of a right to privacy. Particulary regarding medical history.
So my answer to at least two of the questions is no. And the reason is because you are approaching the questions from the standpoint of dealing with the guy who wigs out and uses his legally purchased gun to commit mass murder. Not from the standpoint of the vast majority of gun owners who happen to be college students with or without mental issues who have not and will not commit crimes with their legally owned gun and have a right to their privacy.
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 08:32 PMVery good snark!
For question 3; this person willfully entered an institution for care. He was not forcebly ordered there. Seems that makes a lot of difference. He submitted himself to the hospital or clinic for care. No conviction, no orders, he truthfully registered his gun purchases. With the NBC stuff now out there. This guy planned this, seemedly for a long time. Presidential security might be able to fish this type of individual out. A big 'might', I wouldn't expect any local cops ferreting this out.
Posted by peter at April 18, 2007 09:03 PMTN moves to allow guns in public buildings
By News Sentinel staff
April 18, 2007
NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.
"I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."
Read the full story in Thursday’s News Sentinel.
Posted by peter at April 18, 2007 09:07 PMFirst of all, phidipides makes more sense than anyone on this thread. The boy was sick.
Next, we need good, affordable mental health care in this country, and we need to get rid of the stigma associated with seeking help.
And finally, we need political leaders who have the courage to introduce and fight for sensible gun control legislation.
Posted by Susan S at April 18, 2007 09:14 PMPresidential security might be able to fish this type of individual out. A big 'might', I wouldn't expect any local cops ferreting this out.
You are a fucking idiot.
I'm with phidipides, there isn't much more to see here. I doubt, however that there was anything acute about his illness. Cho was a Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenic who had been deteriorating for a very long time. He had a number of negative predicters - a poor adaptation dating back to high school, a gradual rather than abrupt onset of illness, and predominantly paranoid symptoms. All bespeak a poor prognosis. And his loosely strung together diatrible, delivered in a monotone, with hard to follow connections testify to chronicity.
He was a chronically, desparately ill person who fell through the cracks in spite of warning signs blaring all around. I'll bet Cho will be the topic of most Fall 2007 R.A. orientations around the country [the early recognition of Psychosis], but it's way too late to help the people at Virginia Tech.
Such a tragedy!
Posted by Mickey at April 18, 2007 10:58 PMThis kid was nuts. He's a walking advertisement for stricter gun control, and the gun-nut brand of conservative knows it, too. That's why they're crying so loudly now about people killing people, not guns killing people, etc., and all those other specious arguments. Go tell that shit to the 32 grieving families. The nutjob kid followed the law, but due to numerous gaps that aren't covered by the law, he ended up with enough fire power to perform mass murder. All the home protection and personal protection arguments are beyond ridiculous.
A sane world would work like this:
You want to hunt? Fine, no problem, you're allowed a rifle or shotgun, one or two at most, and not an easily modified thing like an AK-47.
You really need home protection? Fine, go get a shotgun, and the amount of ammunition you can buy is severely limited, with physical proof -- empty cartridges and receipts -- required to buy more shot. Maybe you can have a Taser. Sure, it can kill, but not as easily as a gun. Better yet, you really need protection, go buy yourself a freaking dog. The number of deaths and injury due to dog bites, much greater than any other animal, pales in comparison to the violence the human animal perpetuates against himself every day with guns in these United States. We'd all be a lot better off and a lot less blood would be spilled if everyone who owned a handgun woke up one morning to find their gun had been
replaced with a Mastiff.
You want a handgun? Screw you. You don't need it. There is no legitimate reason for any person to own a 9mm Glock, except to have the ability to kill another human being. We don't need that kind of crap in America, not anymore.
Don't feed me crap about the 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it say you have a right to a .44 Magnum. And it certainly does NOT state that those rights are to be unregulated due to pay-offs from gun manufacturers' and dealers' lobbyists, gun manufacturers and dealers who damn well know their wares are ending up in plenty of criminals and insane people's sick hands.
It is past time to end this shit.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 18, 2007 11:26 PM"In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds."
Oh, that's great. We have had two horrible court room shootings here in St. Louis in the past ten years, in which lawyers were murdered in the Court House during trials.
Hear, hear Brian Bell. Well said.
Posted by Judith at April 19, 2007 01:32 AMAmerica is not only one of the most violent societies, but violence is promoted, because it is profitable. Perhaps we need to start addressing the daily violence that young children are exposed to, and become more responsible, as parents and as a society, to the harm done in the name of profit.
As in most things, there are multi-levels on why people kill. It is the fault of gun laws, NRA, violent videos aimed at the children of this Country, violent movies, violent tv, lack of health outlets for people with problems, a society that still attaches a stigma to therapy, or someone seeking help (think military here), inequality, and the list goes on and on. Violence is the by-product of a society that refuses to address the issues that lead to violence.
Shame on anyone who believes that to combat violence we should arm ourselves with more guns and do away with the few gun laws we have.
You are part of the problem.
Posted by Judith at April 19, 2007 02:14 AM
There Judith goes stepping all over Thomas Jefferson's grave. He recognized what she seems to fail to recognize:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Senator Boxer also said something similar after September 11th; agreed that making airplane cockpits into "gun-free zones" had made airplanes much more dangerous for everyone except hijackers. She helped pass a law arming our pilots. So Judith now seperates herself from Senator Boxer. The Mayor of Nagasaki was just murdered by a gun last week. Uh, Judith, Japan doesn't permit gun ownership.
Hey, I don't own a gun. Wouldn't have one in the house, but I'm not going to force my neighbors into following my example. I know there's guns next door, accross the street, and two doors down the other way. TJ had it right all those years ago. It pains me to say Senator Boxer had it right after September 11th. Removing guns from our society will only indanger the assaulted and better the assailants. Snark up there had it right. We seem to agree on this one...
Posted by peter at April 19, 2007 03:26 AMThe gumment says I can't drive my car without paying all sorts of fees and for insurance, even though I've never caused a car accident. If you want to own a gun, you should have to pass mental screenings every so often, pay license fees for the privilege annually, and hell, wait a few days after initially filling out paperwork to buy one (you know, like many states require of women who want abortions). People may kill people, but without the gun, they'd have a harder time of it.
Posted by Sharon at April 19, 2007 03:43 AMSecret Service officer shoots two agents. Good to know the people protecting Bush show the same level of competence as he.
Posted by Sharon at April 19, 2007 03:46 AMPeter sweetie, read my post again. No where did I say to ban guns. What I said, that you obviously didn't get, is that we need to, as a society, address the violence in this Country. I also do not believe that certain guns should be sold, ever. Typically, people like you think that there should be no restrictions on guns, and that the answer is more guns. I'll say it again, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Posted by Judith at April 19, 2007 04:08 AMOur society has become so desensitized.
The kids play non-stop shooting games on the video. Have access to paintball weapons and gyms. They can catch the latest and greatest killings on internet sites, where they can see the latest beheadings, shootings from Iraq and victims of car accidents. Pure carnage, 24/7.
Society is sick, but we allow it to continue.
I'm not so sure he was a full blown paranoid schizophrenic, he actually was being told he was weird and odd. A schizophrenic would hear this in the form of auditory hallucinations, such as "Son of Sam" heard the dog tell him to do things. I think he was a true paranoid psychotic with bi-polar tendancies. He just never snapped out of his low. Possibly, he was just snapping out of his low and got to high, very sudden to complete his well co-ordinated plan. Phid, correct me if I'm wrong?
Regardless, he was one sick MF that should have never had access to a weapon of any sort!
Next, we need good, affordable mental health care in this country, and we need to get rid of the stigma associated with seeking help.
Great idea Susan S. However, mental health care is not available, and long term mental health care is almost non-existent (unless you have money or are old). Even the military hospitals try and get you out as fast they can, declare your better and put you back on the front lines.
Steve, Your questions are important and should be addressed.
The repukes would love to table this agenda. If the Dems take this on now, it will affect them in 2008. I can see KKKarl licking his lips right now.
there were plenty of warnings, indeed Police actions, which should have intiated action by VT Human Resources to deal with Cho. But Universities are built on vast bureaucracies that go to some length to make sure the kiddies, and staff, aren't thrown out for doing bad things. Universities, at the staff level, are made of people who cannot be held accountable in many cases, due to the shield of HR protections. This results in "I can't be bothered cause I'm overworked anyway" mentalities. In this case, the warnings hit stone walls at the university level, and there is the problem.
Posted by T2 at April 19, 2007 06:14 AMfunny thing happens when the unexplanable hits, we try to find logic in the situation. there is no logic here. was he crazy? probably so. can't diagnose without actually talking to the kid. read the DSM IV-R. he could be antisocial or have any other type of axis 2 we just don't know. the reality here is 30+ people died. it made news here over the pond, and you speculate over gun laws and such... i don't think you need assault rifles or magnums h/t to mr. bell on that; however, we have an opportunity to really examine what is wrong with our country. the glamorization of violence, the need for bigger and better, the perversion of the second amendment. i dont think the founding father's had machine guns, magnums, uzis, or 9's in mind when they wrote it. we as rational folks need to have real discussion with real solutions, or this sadly, will happen again...
Posted by anthony at April 19, 2007 07:03 AMUniversities today are often vast institutions of 20,000-30,000 students, not to mention faculty and staff. Coordination is weak at any level. Classes are often huge. I know nothing about VT in particular, but from my experience in the California State system, I'd say it's a wonder this guy raised as many red flags as he did. Individual students can often drift through school without making any impression anywhere. Budgets are being cut and class sizes and faculty loads increased at many schools across the country. That English prof who tried vainly to get him into counseling deserves a lot of credit.
Posted by Delia at April 19, 2007 10:14 AM"The gumment says I can't drive my car without paying all sorts of fees and for insurance, even though I've never caused a car accident. If you want to own a gun, you should have to pass mental screenings every so often, pay license fees for the privilege annually, and hell, wait a few days after initially filling out paperwork to buy one (you know, like many states require of women who want abortions). People may kill people, but without the gun, they'd have a harder time of it."
Funny, as the left has always whined about waiting periods on abortion.
I don't have to pay to vote. Why should I have to pay to bear arms?
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 10:28 AM"Peter sweetie, read my post again. No where did I say to ban guns. What I said, that you obviously didn't get, is that we need to, as a society, address the violence in this Country. I also do not believe that certain guns should be sold, ever. Typically, people like you think that there should be no restrictions on guns, and that the answer is more guns. I'll say it again, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM."
To paraphrase your own argument on abortion.
Gun owners will own weapons whether you give your permission or not. It has always been that way and will continue to be that way. Guns are not something new to society. We have been having them for centuries, and you are not going to stop it.
I just have to laugh when the left always spouts off how abortion control and drug control are completely ineffective, yet they expect gun control to be different.
Mr. Soto,
I have several friends who have been put through the ringer by collegiate mental health services. I have personally dealt with collegiate mental health services on the behalf of friends. I have friends that have been committed before. I have family members who have mental illnesses which require constant medication. I have family members that have been committed against their will. I do know a little bit about this. Whether I know as much as you is debatable. Please get off your high horse. You do not have a monopoly on knowledge. Your point of view is not necessarily correct.
You also need to realize something. Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean they lose their right to privacy or their right to keep and bear arms. Being mentally ill is not a crime, so don't treat the mentally ill as criminals unless they actually commit a crime. That is discrimination. Who else should lose their rights because you don't like them?
Also, snark (above) is right. Your questions are overly broad. They imply all students regardless of mental state.
If my replies seem smug it is because your questions show a moronic lack of forethought. As a public figure you need to think about the things you are saying and stop going off half-cocked. You are obviously angry about this and you are letting your anger dictate your actions and thoughts.
Posted by at April 19, 2007 11:49 AMThe previous comment, starting "Mr. Soto" was me.
Posted by Douglas Keester at April 19, 2007 01:42 PMHey,
The guy was not pure evil. He was very, very sick and our mental health system is a figment of our fevered minds.
I know this for several good reasons, not the least of which is that I tried to hospitalize my psychotic daughter three weeks ago. Just like Cho, the hospital wouldn't take her.
I found out later that the Regional hospital in Atlanta has four (that is 4 beds for intermediate care) for Atlanta and many surronding counties. That is F O U R.
Posted by Philip Wright at April 19, 2007 05:58 PM