Plainly put, if a university has a “no firearms” policy, I feel the university police should be notified when a student living on campus buys a weapon.
I believe this to be a practically unenforcible proposition.
I understand your fear Steve. Many of the rest of us are parents too. I do however feel differently than you about what extent of invasion of all our privacy would be required to make such suggestions as yours workable.
I think the answer lies in stricter regulation of gun sales, reduced accessibility of guns and in improved treatment of the mentally ill. Not in simply opening more of the details of all our lives to being catalogued in things like police databases.
Posted by snark at April 19, 2007 07:56 PMWell, that's an interesting position on the right to privacy....
Privacy only matters when I say so!
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 08:06 PMI didn't think you were so far off yesterday. The lesson of Cho is too important to ignore. Inpatient care is not available for the people that need it. Long term inpatient care is now virtually non-existent. The move to treat patients "in the community," a positive idea would be fine if there had been a provision for situations where it doesn't work. Such people, psychotic people who do not quickly respond to medications, have no place in the system. While people talk of rights and not stigmatizing the patients and lots of other lofty things, it comes down to money. It costs a lot to deal with the mental patients that don't get better. So their existence is virtually ignored. They live as homeless people, or in jails, of in whatever marginal situations they can find. Fortunately, violent outbursts like Cho's are not common, so society doesn't suffer too much from this shameful ignoring of our most disturbed people, but they [the patients] do.
Mental Health systems have traditionally functioned with the needs of both the patients and society in mind. But in recent history, neither need is served. Cho points to a huge hole in the system, one known to anyone in the field. If anything good comes from this horrible incident, it will be a heightened public awareness of this problem - and hopefully some movement towards its solution. Right now, there's no place for a Cho, and yet such people continue to exist. If there's blame to bring, it belongs to our whole society for ignoring the marginal people like this man - leaving them to the ravages of their illness and exposing society to the threat of this kind of slaughter.
Posted by Mickey at April 19, 2007 08:26 PMI haven't read any of the posts today, but Steve, you are very right about one thing. While the these people embraced the Patriot Act, support Bush on spying on Americans (to protect us?), and bascially have said that we no longer have rights to privacy, their outcry is just a tab bit hypocritical, but not surprising.
Posted by Judith at April 19, 2007 08:58 PMSteve, I agree with your points completely. Our right to privacy is already in the toilet.
Here is an example that could help the Mental Health system. A convicted drunk driver is placed under tight resistriction and is in the court system. A mental health patient should be forced to go to counseling as well, forced to complete rigorous mental health screening each time.
The school should be able to politely tell the young student that they are not welcome, until they requalify under certain criteria.
Finally, the Mental Health system is as broke in this country as the Veterans system is, if not worse. The first cuts in spending on the local level are detox and mental health facilities.
Repukes as a whole want to ignore the problems of society. When they got voted in, all that compassionate conservatism went out the window.
"The mentally ill, everyone elses (their) problem, not mine!" "Drunk drivers, not my problem, their problem!" As long as it doesn't hit home for them they are content.
Basically the cost is too high.
An example, my wingnut Sister: Her daughter is bi-polar, supply her with help? Nope! Accuse her of always lying, not being responsible, having delusions of granduer, petty problems with the law. I try to tell my sister that these are the symptoms. She completely ignores my suggestions. She continues to treat her that way to this day.
Fortunately, I tell my niece the most important thing is to take her medicine each day and keep living.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2007 08:59 PM
"I haven't read any of the posts today, but Steve, you are very right about one thing. While the these people embraced the Patriot Act, support Bush on spying on Americans (to protect us?), and bascially have said that we no longer have rights to privacy, their outcry is just a tab bit hypocritical, but not surprising. "
Actually, I don't really care much for the "right" to privacy.
Want to register me to a gun database? Fine.
I'd rather have Republicans listening to my phone calls than Democrats taxing me into oblivion to the extent I can no longer afford a phone.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 09:01 PMI'd rather have Republicans listening to my phone calls than Democrats taxing me into oblivion to the extent I can no longer afford a phone.
Supports my point exactly on all mental health services and detox facilities being low priority. No use in asking repukes to pay their fair share in society's problems.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2007 09:08 PMIt's not like Democrats want to pay their fair share either. They want to tax "the rich".
You know, kind of like the income tax was only for "the rich". And the AMT was only for "the rich".
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 09:49 PMI would prefer to tax the Waltons, Exxon-Mobil, etc...don't tell me they can't afford it?
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2007 09:51 PMI don't see why the schools shouldn't get access to gun ownership lists of their students only.
The FBI raided a business connected with Rick Renzi today, our local Phoenix Fox Noise station just reported.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 19, 2007 10:24 PMTIKI I read that over at Think Progress. Outstanding!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2007 10:36 PM"I would prefer to tax the Waltons, Exxon-Mobil, etc...don't tell me they can't afford it?"
Who said they can't?
That's compassionate liberalism for you. Society has a bunch of problems.....so somebody else should be forced to finance the solution.
Funny how nobody talks about the record $28 billion Exxon paid in income taxes.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 10:46 PMlordanus, Link please.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2007 11:01 PMHere is an example that could help the Mental Getting back on topic before lordanus hijacks the thread completely.
Here is an example that could help the Mental Health system. A convicted drunk driver is placed under tight resistriction and is in the court system. A mental health patient should be forced to go to counseling as well, forced to complete rigorous mental health screening each time.
The school should be able to politely tell the young student that they are not welcome, until they requalify under certain criteria.
From Red Wing at dkos:
Former Secretary of Labor and University of California professor Robert Reich pretty much nails it:
In the United States, if you are seriously depressed, you can purchase anti-depressive drugs like Prozac, but only if you have a prescription from a doctor. Anti-depressants are enormously beneficial to millions of people but they are also potentially dangerous if used improperly. So, you have to see a doctor and get an assessment before you can go to a drug store and purchase one.
But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition. All you need is two forms of identification. You don’t need permission from a doctor or counselor or anyone in the business of screening people to make sure [you’re] fit to have a gun.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 19, 2007 11:15 PMYou're right, Steve, this from another parent of college kids (who have a lifelong friend at VT, thankfully safe). I have become enraged by the limp use of "tragedy" by left gun lovers at DKos to cover their complacency about doing nothing at all. As for the Right's hypocritical "concern" for privacy only when it impinges on one of their holy matters, it would be a pointless waste of time to accuse them of a double standard when having a double standard is their whole point anyway.
Posted by jlb at April 20, 2007 03:20 AMRight wing hypocrisy? Its not a bug, its a feature.
aimai
Posted by aimai at April 20, 2007 05:03 AMLink to exxon mobil's income taxes I presume?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/02/01/hurray-for-profits/
Here's a story about it. Next link is there income statement, where the income tax expenses are accounted.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
And before you start ranting about the tax breaks:
It was the Clinton administration, in 1995, which exempted companies from about 10% of offshore royalties.
It was the Clinton adminstration which passed a poorly worded law about those royalties which allows oil companies to bypass about 2/3 of those royalties.
It was the Clinton admistration in 1998 and 1999 that forgot to index any of this to the price of a barrel of oil, so Exxon and company kept their favorable treatment even as the price of oil rose above $34 a barrel. Whoops? Monica taking up his time?
Oh, right....its still Bush's fault.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 20, 2007 07:16 AMFunny how nobody talks about the record $28 billion Exxon paid in income taxes.
It's so difficult to make the link between record profits and record taxes.
The lesson of Cho is too important to ignore. Inpatient care is not available for the people that need it.
The lesson of Cho is that he had the absolute best private care available.
Fortunately, violent outbursts like Cho's are not common,
You are incorrect.
A mental health patient should be forced to go to counseling as well, forced to complete rigorous mental health screening each time
You do realize you are calling for a mental health registry for sick people. Maybe we can go online and lookup where they live.
Anyone -depressed, ocd and washing their hands too much, a loved one dies and they are upset, bulemic or anorexic, can't sleep, can't relax, acrophobic, mysophobic...all of these mentally ill and oh so dangerous fucks- should be registered like a sex offender.
Great. We really need to put these people in the closet so they can hide their symptoms to stay off the registry and don't get the help they desire and need. That will keep them out of sight and your kids in college safe.
...The school should be able to politely tell the young student that they are not welcome, until they requalify under certain criteria.
What makes you think a school can't do this already? I assure you, they can. It can happen anywhere from kindergarten to grad school.
Lets see. Cho presented to the health system with these symptoms: Difficulty with relationships, depressed, suicidal ideations, agressive and wants to beat someone up.
This describes 1/2 the males on a college campus who suffered a bad relationship, and most of the females. His symptoms were common, white bread symptoms on a college campus.
An Excuse For Doing Nothing?
Everything that could have been done was done. Cho was very ill. If handguns were outlawed and unavailable Cho would have used that hammer he had. He would have used the knife. He would have driven his car through the quad at noon. He would have used dynamite. He would have made gasoline bombs. He would have detonated himself in a group of people.
All of the laws you can contrive, all of the manipulations you do to the mental health system, all of the policy you put in place on the campus would not have prevented Cho from carrying-out his act.
You have contrived this perfect world in your mind where you are the arbiter of how the mental health system should work based on some perfect clarity you suppose yourself to have about psychopathology and how best to deal with these issues. You do not possess that clarity.
With the path to hell being paved with good intentions, let me tell you the outcome of many of the things you suggest:
Your daugter has a bad relationship and writes about how bad she feels on her Myspace. She tells about her undying love for the guy, how she is so depressed, how she thinks about it all the time, how he won't respond to her many text messages, how she just wished she could die, and that she would love to beat the shit out him because he doesn't realize how much she cares.
I, as a school administrator, have this brought to my attention. I put into action the Soto Amendement. Your daughter is whisked away for a lovely sojurn in a mental health facility. You as a parent have no say in it, and since she is suspect she certainly has no say in it. A magistrate says, "Yup, good to go for a 24 hour detention."
She cannot come back to campus unless she is in counseling and making progress (all of this blows a semester or 3 of her work, btw). She MUST be registered as a mental health risk in the police mental health risk registry, and the campus police are notified that she is a mental health risk. She is made aware that she is being viewed as a risk on the campus, and that everyone is "watching". Every semester her professors get an email saying she is a mental health risk, and they are to report any suspicious activity or interactions on her behalf, because she is a mental risk, and her writings must be scrutinized by mental health professionals on campus. She is assigned to the "high risk" dorms so she can be watched.
That is exactly the way it will happen. Maybe not your kid, but most certainly someone elses.
You know, we have every possible mechanism set in place to stop kids from committing suicide while at college. Everyone I know is committed to prevention and concerned about it. Posters on the wall. Counseling services available 24/7. 1100 kids committed suicide while at college last year. The best intentions and best policy cannot solve every problem and prevent every bad outcome. Yet, that is what you think you can achieve, and you think you can do so when you have no expertise in the area.
You want your daughter perfectly safe? Bring her home, lock her in her room, and let her get her degree from the University of Phoenix. Otherwise, she has to get out there and mature in the big world. And that goes along with her experiencing the good stuff and the bad stuff out there. Maybe you should call her on the phone, tell her you love her, and ask her what she thinks about it...and listen, really listen, without interjecting your ideas or leading the conversation. Simply ask her what she thinks and how she feels about things. Let her do the talking. Then tell her you love her.
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2007 09:30 AMBravo, p-dip. That was a stellar post. Thanks for articulating what I was thinking, but couldn't spit out.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 20, 2007 09:54 AMWell said phidipides. A very valuable contribution to this debate.
Posted by snark at April 20, 2007 10:02 AMFunny how nobody talks about the record $28 billion Exxon paid in income taxes.
Exxon didn't pay that, their customers did. Why do you think prices soared so high? Their tax bill did not hurt their bottom line, they did not struggle to pay the IRS, because those who bought the gas paid the tax bill, too. Just another regressive tax.
Posted by ann at April 20, 2007 10:04 AMThis person went beyond fantasizing on My space. That's one but factor among quite a few in the toxic cluster leading up to the event.
For one thing he didn't only imagine, he acted out -- harassing the female students in his class so that they refused to attend, taking pictures of their legs under the desks. Terrifying his teachers to the point that one even threatened to quit unless he was removed.
I too am the parent of a college student and have an interest in this as well.
I want to know is about one other factor in the mix that is maybe not entirely unrelated to the outcome -- namely, how the English Department of V Tech justifies giving courses that include viewing Freddy Kruger movies and writing violent horror stories? Do they study this in the name of sociology? Or is it a strategem to attract enrollment in the department? I am not making this up. It was in the NY Times but no one has remarked on it.
And if limits are to be set on free expression for Don Imus in his pursuit of ratings, what about limits for English departments on theirs? Just asking.
"O pardon me, thou bleeding peece of Earth: that I am meeke and gentle with these butchers. Thou art the ruines of the noblest man that euer lived in the Tide of Times. Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood. Over thy wounds, now do I prophesie, (Which like dumb mouthes do ope their ruby lips, To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue) A Curse shall light upon the limbs of men; domestic fury, and fierce civil strife, shall cumber all the parts of Italy: blood and destruction shall be so in use, And dreadfull objects so familiar, That mothers shall but smile, when they behold their infants quartered with the hands of war: All pity choked with custom of fell deeds, And Caesar's Spirit ranging for Revenge, with Ate by his side, come hot from Hell, Shall in these confines, with a monarch's voice, cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war, That this foul deed, shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial." --Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
Posted by Harold at April 20, 2007 10:32 AMNo one limited Don Imus' right to freely express himself.
Posted by snark at April 20, 2007 12:40 PMDo they study this in the name of sociology? Or is it a strategem to attract enrollment in the department?
Probably a bit of both. I've been in and have taught several English and history classes that used film as a teaching tool. It engages the students a lot more than just dry lectures can, and serves as a focus for discussion on many different levels.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 20, 2007 12:51 PMDo they study this in the name of sociology? Or is it a strategem to attract enrollment in the department?
And there we go. It must be what is taught at the University.
What these people want is a massive Romper Room for a University where the academics and staff are paid to run around with both hands on the side of their kids head so the kid won't get a bump as they toddle and fall down.
I can recommed some really good international schools for those of you looking for an education for your kids instead of a babysitter.
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2007 01:54 PMShe MUST be registered as a mental health risk in the police mental health risk registry, and the campus police are notified that she is a mental health risk. She is made aware that she is being viewed as a risk on the campus, and that everyone is "watching". Every semester her professors get an email saying she is a mental health risk, and they are to report any suspicious activity or interactions on her behalf, because she is a mental risk, and her writings must be scrutinized by mental health professionals on campus.
I know first hand this is already happening. Not only in schools but when you try to apply for a job anywhere. This discrimination will follow you all your life. Everyone wants the perfect worker, in mind, body and spirit.
It's like the movie Gattaca, it will be a caste system of sorts. You don't need the DNA now, but just follow the paper trail.
phid, I don't dispute what you say. However, by the description, Cho was way sicker than most males or females that merely go through a simple love breakup.
When one of his teachers had to remove him from class for his disturbed writing and other kids in school are actually walking on eggshells around him, that's when the school should have insisted on him getting a clean mental bill of health. No one should be allowed to dominate his classmates by these actions. These kids should expect to learn in as stress free environment as possible. Or at least know he is on his meds.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 20, 2007 02:45 PM
However, by the description, Cho was way sicker than most males or females that merely go through a simple love breakup.
Only after the fact. Before, he was not. His evaluation reads, in part ""affect is flat. ... He denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal." It was thought he might be a danger to himself. He was not considered a threat to others.
and other kids in school are actually walking on eggshells
Do you mean the two girls he was TMing? "...the women considered the messages "annoying," not threatening, and neither pressed charges,..." And after the second complaint, the University got a dentention order and had Cho hospitalized. That is when Cho started his suicidal ideation.
When one of his teachers had to remove him from class for his disturbed writing
He was kicked out for this: "Students in Giovanni’s class had told their professor that Cho was taking photographs of their legs and knees under the desks with his cell phone. Female students refused to come to class. She said she considered him 'mean' and 'a bully.'"
These kids should expect to learn in as stress free environment as possible.
You mean free from someone who disagreed with them, or had alternative ideas? I get complaints all the time when a student just hogs the conversation or disagrees with another students' opinion. Shit. I guess because aother student complains I now have some mentally ill student I need to put a registry.
And to top it off, the same professor who said he was "mean" and a "bully", said that campus officials "'hit a wall in terms of what they could do "with a student on campus unless he’d made a very overt threat to himself or others.'"
Hmmm. He was not threatening others nor himself. And the professor even states it.
You are working with the perfect knowledge supplied by hindsight. That adds lots of clarity.
I was talking about the teacher who removed him and taught him one on one. And the interactive kids who had to read his plays, some said they were afraid of making a negative comment.
You are correct phid, ...working with the perfect knowledge supplied by hindsight. That adds lots of clarity.
I hope you understand, I did ask for your insight the other day on this issue. Thanks, it does make it clearer.
Just to let you know the right to privacy issue has already been popped. I'm bi-polar and have a (mild) case of PTSD. I know a bit of where these kids get placed, the discrimination they face. I've self medicated myself for years before I knew what was really wrong. I've been to some really dark places. With good counseling there is help for people out there. It comes down to funding.
According to AP stories appearing today in the NY Times, Salon, and elsewhere, Cho should have been denied purchase of a gun because of the judicial finding that he was an imminent threat to himself or others - under current Federal law and separate from the State application's question as to whether he had been "involuntarily committed." This fact did not appear in the Federal database checked by Roanoke Firearms because the "required" state reporting program is spotty, due largely to poor funding at the state level. (Virginia has among the most lax gun laws in the Southeast - e.g., no waiting period - and is a major contributor of legally-purchased, illegally-used firearms to violent crime in New York and other large Northeastern cities.) One can of course imagine scenarios where an antisocial middle class young man from the exurbs of Fairfax County could have illegally acquired his paramilitary weaponry, but I believe that would be special pleading that would strain credulity or relevance. If these reports are true, the laws as they are, or could easily be, might very well have prevented Cho from getting what he needed to make the impact he did, thus saving many Virginia Tech parents untold grief and agony. I know that being at work today and thus having a "cooling off" period before responding to some of these comments helped me.
Posted by jlb at April 20, 2007 03:48 PMSoto:
Plainly put, if a university has a “no firearms” policy, I feel the university police should be notified when a student living on campus buys a weapon. I also feel that the Dean of Students should do more whenever a student is deemed mentally ill and may pose a risk to himself or others, so that the student can be contacted and can receive services.
Okay, but that's a whole lot of police and/or nanny-state stuff that is ---once again--- predicated on the presumption that it is legalities and institutional liabilities that will ultimately govern man when it is only the integrity of individual minds that matters in the end.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 20, 2007 05:20 PMExxon didn't pay that, their customers did. Why do you think prices soared so high? Their tax bill did not hurt their bottom line, they did not struggle to pay the IRS, because those who bought the gas paid the tax bill, too. Just another regressive tax.
The price of oil soared for several reasons, many of which have nothing directly to do with Exxon.
I'm glad to see 1 person get it though....taxing "rich evil corporations" is hardly a good idea for a product with such inelastic demand.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 20, 2007 06:30 PMI'm glad to see 1 person get it though....taxing "rich evil corporations" is hardly a good idea for a product with such inelastic demand.
Your attempts to hijack this thread are truly tasteless.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 20, 2007 09:07 PM
Mr. Soto,
I will start off by saying that I have enjoyed reading this site for the better part of two years. You and your fellow bloggers have given me much food for thought. While you are a regular person, you blog on a site that must get thousands or millions of hits a day. Whether you like it or not this makes you a public figure, just like Kos, Atrios, and Josh Marshall. You influence the thoughts and opinions of many people, myself included. This makes you a public figure in my book.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts further. I now see your point of view much better. I agree that we should not browbeat each other. We should treat each other intelligently and politely. I think that we can definitely agree not to agree on certain things. But we should do it without attacking each other.
You bring up a good point about the line where the right to privacy ends and someone else's safety begins. Cho should have been stopped. No one will disagree with that. But how do we draw that line? How do we maintain someone's rights while maintaining the safety of a large group of people. I don't have a good answer. I will play devil's advocate here a bit, however, and mention that there had never been a right to safety. I will also give you my favorite quote from Ben Franklin. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Just some food for thought.
Like you, I also worry about the erosion of our rights in this country. I, like many liberals, feel that we need to stand up for them. I believe in the Bill of Rights, but I believe that we can not pick and choose. If we are going to defend the right to privacy and the right to free expression, then we are honor and duty bound to protect the right to keep and bear arms. It is an all or nothing proposition. As a wise man once told me "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it." I would like to add my own extension that. "I may not like your vast collection of firearms, but I will defend with my life your right to own them." There are some neo-cons out there that want to pick and choose which rights everyone gets. They want to take away privacy but keep the guns, for example. I think that liberals need to be better than that. If we also pick and choose, then we are no better than they are. Our rights are disappearing. We as a nation need to stand up and protect them. Should there be limits, yes. No regular citizen has any need of an AK-47 so why should it be available to him. But those rights need to be preserved and upheld. You can't have the AK-47, but you can have a Glock-9. The Constitution and Bill of Rights form a cohesive whole. Gut part of it, you might as well gut the whole thing.
The justice system failed in this case. Had the judge committed Cho rather than ordering outpatient treatment, then his firearms background check would not have come back clean and he would never have been able to get the guns. It is a sad thing. I can understand why it keeps you up nights. Could other things have been done? Are there other options for preventing this in the future? Perhaps, but it needs to be done in such a way as to preserve the rights of the people involved. And while we are at it, maybe there are some ways to reverse the erosion of our rights so that our great-great-grandchildren can still enjoy the freedoms that you and I cherish.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Posted by Douglas Keester at April 20, 2007 09:43 PMI hope you understand, I did ask for your insight the other day on this issue. Thanks, it does make it clearer.
??? Look, SoS, you are a hero to me. You really are. I wish I could explain how much I respect and admire you. We've spoken about the the great care and concern you have for veterans. We've spoken about the great care and concern you have for your family. You and I are having nothing more than a conversation. That's all, and never more than that.
I think of you as an honorable and admirable person, sir. I honestly mean every word of it.
I've self medicated myself for years before I knew what was really wrong.
Lot's of us self-medicate, buddy. I'm doing it as we speak.
I have a very good understanding of the Chos in this world. Not just formal education and working with them. The person I love more than anything in the world, and the person who loves me more than anyone else in this world, developed schizophrenia. He was so very bright. Vibrant, fun, outgoing, intelligent, witty, beautiful. He was physically stunning. Honest to God he could walk through a room and women would melt. But beyond that was his incredible brain. And he was goofy enough to love me.
Then he started seeing snipers. He saw snipers on roof tops. He saw snipers in trees. He saw snipers in man hole covers. The world started coming after him. God started talking to him on the T.V. It was not long and drawn-out coming, it was very sudden.
When he began exhibiting these "odd" behaviors I knew that I -as the big bad clinical psychologist with all of the answers I had at the time- could use every ounce of the cognitive-behavioral theories and interventions at my disposal and solve the problem. I did it all. I was stunning in my control of the situation. Every ideation he had I could block. Being rational and being a gun owner -and I have a nice little collection- I hid the bullets. I was good. I was in control. I am rational.
I wake up one night with him sitting in the middle of my chest with my .357 single-action Ruger Blackhawk -an old one wthout the hammer modification- against my temple hearing, "Snap! Click, snap! Click, snap!", while he mumbled, "You, it's always been you." I reached up, took the gun away, and had him EOD'd (committed}. I hugged him very tightly and held him until he was taken away.
His family came for him, and as they were going home he had a horrible break -seeing snipers on a bridge, grabbed the wheel of the car hitting the guard rail, and was eventually beaten into submission by the police. The story gets even more bleak, but I won't share it here.
I know and fully realize with clarity that no one can cover all instances of psychotic behavior. If I have perfect command of everything psychologists know and understand, and the person I love most and know best is willing to kill me and I can't see it coming, then it is utter folly to think we can come up with anything that could have solved Cho's situation. That's where I'm coming from.
Peace, buddy.
Posted by phidipides at April 20, 2007 09:52 PMThanks phid, I know everything is cool and we are just discussing stuff. I found what I was talking about, it was more or less on Cho's condition:
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!
Your story touched my heart. I'm sorry for your loss. Thanks for sharing.
In these days, Peace is what we all need! That's why it's a big SoS for the world.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 21, 2007 12:29 AMSome of these arguments remind me of right-wing logic in attacking welfare: anyone who wants to can make it on his or her own because someone did. The argument is from the visible but partial to a projected uniform whole. The paucity of data on the inverse phenomenon - those who tried and were worthy but had no opportunity - is never cited and in fact is the convenient false assumption of the whole argument. In this case, we do not know how many other Cho's may have been prevented by the very imperfect and overtaxed (at least in one sense if not in others ...) system we have. What we do know now is that the probability of Cho Seuing-Hui committing an atrocity is 1. And it's clear that reasonable laws are already on the books that, honestly funded and enforced, could have sharply reduced that probability. It would not have required stigmatization of Cho to stop him, merely refusing him the "right" to buy a paramilitary weapon. If I go blind I will insist on my right to vote, but I will not argue if I am no longer allowed to drive. The NRA is correct that there are many laws in effect that would do much good if they were truly enforced, though they then of course turn around and work to undercut and underfund those same laws. Even without stating on a slippery slope, there is much we could do if we were honest about it.
Posted by jlb at April 21, 2007 03:15 AM