Virginia Tech Campus Shut Down - Shooting Incident

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's a good point and I agree with you. But here some people talk the past few days, the "free society" part may get less free. In order to combat and make laws based on a single example (as governments are apt to do), any violent writings, images, etc. could be tracked and logged and be made public in the interest of "preventing" something like this from happening again.

That's exactly what people are asking for - for the government to keep a closer eye on everyone. Which pisses me off.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by molson

That's exactly what people are asking for - for the government to keep a closer eye on everyone. Which pisses me off.

Imagine that.

[Groundhog]

Remember when people used to wait at least like a week before parodying events like this? I've already seen one fake myspace page for the shooter.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

How am I being close minded? If anything, I think I'm trying to think outside the box by recognizing that it doesn't appear that the way we deal with people like this is very effective, so what else can be done to help prevent something like this is the future?

I'm not a doctor, so I have no doubt I'm being more black and white than reality would allow, but I'm just pointing out what appears to be a big hole in how we deal with these types of situations. I'm actually more sympathetic to this guy than I would otherwise be, because it seems like his prior medical history undoubtedly factored into why this happened. So how do we deal with his downward spiral to try to prevent him from bottoming out? That's all I'm raising here.

I was very close to putting ("not referring to you, Ksyrup") in my post because I wasn't referring to you at all. I think your points are more well-thought out than some of my "colleagues" at my school who are supposedly very rational yet have a very irrational view (from my take, anyway) about this whole incident.

Sorry for the wrong inference.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2059730,00.html

Teacher's bravery let students flee


Ewen MacAskill
Wednesday April 18, 2007
The Guardian


A survivor of the Holocaust died trying to save his students from the Virginia Tech gunman, it emerged yesterday.
Liviu Librescu, 76, who survived the Nazi killings, later escaped from communist Romania to become a respected aeronautics expert.

"My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee," his son, Joe Librescu, said from his home outside Tel Aviv.

Student Alec Calhoun told the Guardian how Mr Librescu's bravery bought him precious seconds after the killer started shooting in the next room. "I thought I was going to die. I started to make a barricade of desks."


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Calhoun went to jump out of the window. It was then he saw Mr Librescu. "I hung on to the ledge. The professor was trying to hold the door closed. I was the last one out that was not wounded."
When he finally forced his way in, Mr Librescu threw himself in front of the attacker, a student told Israel's Army Radio. "He was killed but thanks to him his students lived," the student said. Messages were posted on the web praising the professor. "No act could be more selfless." one poster wrote.

I've been thinking about this story most of the day. The lesson is: Life is worth living, and life is worth caring about. Life is important. Its a dramatic refutation of the nihilism preached by the gunman.

[Izulde]

On a tangential note, here at UW-L, they found a note with a bomb threat in one of the res halls today, so they shut it down and evacuated it until 5 pm.

They didn't find anything else, but I can understand their investigating in light of the VT situation.

[Leonidas]

I'm not real wild about the videos being shown on TV. I'm sure friends and family of the dead aren't real thrilled about it.

Now the frenzy will be on to assign blame, which bothers me even more. Can't it just be that one guy was nuts and killed a bunch of people? I'm sure the school will be blamed, the police will be blamed, his teachers will be blamed. And if he were an Arab terrorist his victims would be blamed.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I'm not real wild about the videos being shown on TV. I'm sure friends and family of the dead aren't real thrilled about it.

Yeah that would be fucking intense if your kid was one of the victims, and you then you see their killers face posing with the murder weapons in Dirty Harry style.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't believe you're the only one. I think many, if not most of us are capable of that evil.

I'm sorry but I don't think I am capable of walking into a public place and killing 32 people. And I also don't feel I am capable of that kind of rage because the rage he had was not the kind of anger that a "normal" person has. I would also hope to hell that many of the people on this board don't have that in them either.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

That's exactly what people are asking for - for the government to keep a closer eye on everyone. Which pisses me off.

No, not everyone. I don't think, even if you and I wrote a 5th grade-quality essay about a pedophile who is murdered by a kid, that there would be reason enough to keep tabs on us. But multiple run-ins with the law, a psych referral, a court order of mental illness, talk of suicide, bizarre behavior that frightens teachers/students (or co-workers, family, whatever)...yeah, taken together, I think all of that warrants some monitoring.

I'm curious to know a couple of things about this situation:

1. I still haven't got an answer about whether the court order was confidential or not, or whether that sort of thing is required to be shared with other governmental agencies. I'm not saying Joe Blow should have access to all court-ordered mental evaluations, but you'd think, for purposes of evaluating college student applications, or law enforcement candidates, or school teacher applications, that someone would have access to that information. Right? What if this guy completes his education, becomes a 10th grade English teacher, and comes to class one day and kills everyone? Surely his past history would have been known...right?!?!?

2. Re the 12/05 court order, after he went to counseling, I wonder if there was ever any follow-up at all with him. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about - the system isn't equipped to track someone like this, unless they've acted out in a criminal manner. But there's got to be something that can be done when someone like this shows an increase in aggressive/bizarre behavior, having already been in the system at one point. Do we even know if the parents were aware of the court order or anything that has occurred since the fall of 2005?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I was very close to putting ("not referring to you, Ksyrup") in my post because I wasn't referring to you at all. I think your points are more well-thought out than some of my "colleagues" at my school who are supposedly very rational yet have a very irrational view (from my take, anyway) about this whole incident.

Sorry for the wrong inference.

OK. You referred to law students and I'm a lawyer, so I thought you were lumping me in with people at your school.

[Subby]

I just finished reading a narrative about the events and can't recommend it enough for folks here. It's fairly long and highly emotional, but I feel better for reading it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

... but you'd think, for purposes of evaluating college student applications, or law enforcement candidates, or school teacher applications, that someone would have access to that information. Right?

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=1173350836563

Paul M. Barnett, the special justice who released Cho, said that authorities are notified about a person's mental condition only if there is a hospitalization. Because Cho was released for outpatient treatment, a background check would not have turned up any designation that Cho had been judged mentally ill.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...=1173350836563

Paul M. Barnett, the special justice who released Cho, said that authorities are notified about a person's mental condition only if there is a hospitalization. Because Cho was released for outpatient treatment, a background check would not have turned up any designation that Cho had been judged mentally ill.

Scary. I realize it was only a temporary order, but again, on the follow-up thing, you'd think that if someone was assigned to this guy when that first happened, that a little follow-up with Cho himself, or just quick questions to people known to come in contact with him, or, say, the campus police, would have raised some concern.

This is where my "fall through the cracks" feeling comes in. Not that he didn't get any treatment or inadequate treatment, but that everyone seems to have been working separately on this, for a variety of reasons, and no one person/agency had the complete picture until now. That's what I think we need to work on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's what I think we need to work on.

Good luck with that.

But I'd recommend that you get a hard hat & some steel-toed boots, 'cause you're going to have more groups jumping up & down calling for your head than you can shake a stick at. They'll probably need to take a number or work out a rotation or something, just to make sure everybody gets their turn at you.

edit to add: And to try to head off some of the inevitable clamor for my own head for daring to be so blunt about the likely reaction, it's not like this is something I say (or support) easily or without some consideration. As a teenager I was committed to an in-patient mental health facility for treatment of severe depression & suicidal ideations. Which basically means that I was so depressed that I was fixated on the concept of suicide as a viable form of relief even though (at that time) I had not made an active attempt to kill myself. About two weeks later I was back home, not really any healthier mentally, but a good bit wiser in the ways of telling a Freudian shrink what he wanted to hear in order to sign off on my release.

Should a university have known about that background, at least so that they could consider it as part of any admission request? I believe they should have, as I spent the next several years so close to the line that being in the wrong environment (such as college would have almost certainly been for me at that time) would have been dangerous to both me & everyone around me. But as it was, all I had to do to keep them from knowing anything about it was to not check off that little box that asked about mental/emotional illness.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Scary. I realize it was only a temporary order, but again, on the follow-up thing, you'd think that if someone was assigned to this guy when that first happened, that a little follow-up with Cho himself, or just quick questions to people known to come in contact with him, or, say, the campus police, would have raised some concern.

This is where my "fall through the cracks" feeling comes in. Not that he didn't get any treatment or inadequate treatment, but that everyone seems to have been working separately on this, for a variety of reasons, and no one person/agency had the complete picture until now. That's what I think we need to work on.

I still have no idea where you're coming from. The school knew he was nuts, his parents knew he was nuts. It was addressed. There's probably a handful of people at Virginia Tech RIGHT NOW (along with EVERY other university, town, high school, and employer) who have equal or worse mental profiles that are known at this time.

What you haven't articulated yet is, if tomorrow, you're assigned crazy broad powers as "Chief Officer for Crazy People in America" how exactly do you handle these issues (legally and constitutionally?). All you're doing is poking holes, and grasping.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just noticed on a website that, despite the 'factual' implications of Jack Thompson on multiple media outlets, no video games (violent or otherwise) were even found in the VT killer's possessions.

Do I have criminal tendancies if the thought of Jack Thompson being wrapped in duct tape and thrown in a river is appealing to me?????

[Toddzilla]

I'll feel much better when they stop showing the pictures and playing the video of this psychotic mass-murdering asshat and devote some time to the stories of the victims and their families. Quit glorifying the killer by giving him the exposure he wanted for crying out loud.

[Oilers9911]

How much better would the world be if he had blown his own head off first? We can only wish.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I'll feel much better when they stop showing the pictures and playing the video of this psychotic mass-murdering asshat and devote some time to the stories of the victims and their families. Quit glorifying the killer by giving him the exposure he wanted for crying out loud.

What better for ratings? Titillating tales of a pyschopath or depressing reminders of wrongful deaths? I'm hard pressed to rip the media for giving time to what more people will watch. And I think perception may play a part in negative reaction too, if you consider this.

I've seen several comments about how the Anna Nicole Smith death was overplayed in the news, but did you know that at no time did the subject ever exceed 10% of news time in a given week? That's compared to the 26% of time given to the Imus controversy, which was the 2nd biggest story of the year to date (behind a January troop buildup announcement).

[King of New York]

IMHO, news outlets should not be showing that video. They can report that they have a video, they can release a written transcript of what is said on the video, fine, but none of those things would have the same visceral impact on the families, or would be nearly as "inspiring" to the kids and adults out there who are tempted to emulate this guy.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by King of New York

IMHO, news outlets should not be showing that video. They can report that they have a video, they can release a written transcript of what is said on the video, fine, but none of those things would have the same visceral impact on the families, or would be nearly as "inspiring" to the kids and adults out there who are tempted to emulate this guy.

It is completely insulting to the victims for that video to have been released.

"Here, you haven't been through enough...we are going to taunt you some more..."

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Subby

It is completely insulting to the victims for that video to have been released.

"Here, you haven't been through enough...we are going to taunt you some more..."

I don't know how taunting or insulting it is - after all anyone, including me, can simply change the channel or turn off the television when they show that fuckbird. I'm specifically upset at how the news media is glorifying, nee celebrating a mass murder and legitimizing his actions and his words by playing them over and over and over. Don't give the guy the attention he craved.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I'll feel much better when they stop showing the pictures and playing the video of this psychotic mass-murdering asshat and devote some time to the stories of the victims and their families. Quit glorifying the killer by giving him the exposure he wanted for crying out loud.

"

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Should a university have known about that background, at least so that they could consider it as part of any admission request? I believe they should have, as I spent the next several years so close to the line that being in the wrong environment (such as college would have almost certainly been for me at that time) would have been dangerous to both me & everyone around me. But as it was, all I had to do to keep them from knowing anything about it was to not check off that little box that asked about mental/emotional illness.

I just wanted to note that of the stuff I've read, I haven't seen anything that would show in 2002 or 2003 (or potntially as far back as 2001) when he would have been applying for school at VT that this stuff had come out. Most of what I'm seeing has happened since he was in college. Just to note that I don't know that VT would have had any indication when they admitted him.

Originally Posted by molson

I still have no idea where you're coming from. The school knew he was nuts, his parents knew he was nuts. It was addressed. There's probably a handful of people at Virginia Tech RIGHT NOW (along with EVERY other university, town, high school, and employer) who have equal or worse mental profiles that are known at this time.

What you haven't articulated yet is, if tomorrow, you're assigned crazy broad powers as "Chief Officer for Crazy People in America" how exactly do you handle these issues (legally and constitutionally?). All you're doing is poking holes, and grasping.

yes, yes, a million times yes.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Subby

It is completely insulting to the victims for that video to have been released.

True, but... what responsibility, if any, does news media covering a major story have to protect the feelings of those involved?

I mean, we all know the video is going to be a ratings grabber and that they'd show it even if it wasn't newsworthy at all... but I'm a little uncomfortable with expecting the media to filter their coverage based on the victims' reactions.

[NoMyths]

re: the media's publication of the photos and videos:
The photograph of the murderer on CNN's front page yesterday, showing him pointing a gun at the camera, was so offensive that it's hard not to think of it as almost criminally irresponsible. I can't imagine that any victims who survived the shooting, only to see the same image pop up on their screens, wouldn't be traumatized again.

I'm growing more and more disgusted at the violence/torture porn trend that continues to emerge in our culture, and I have a hard time viewing that decision to use it as anything but gratuitous.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by molson

The one problem I have with VT is academic - how they did they admit this guy?

I read this quote from a department head:

"At first he would hardly say anything, and I was lucky to get, say, in 30 minutes, four or five monosyllabic answers from him," she said. "But bit by bit, he began to tell me things."

That scene sounds like it should be taking place in a mental hospital or a grade school - not an institution of higher learning. Maybe he had a decent SAT score - but don't you need a letter of recomendation, personal essay, interview, some semblance of extracurricular activites? He high school grades must have been crap, it seems he barely did anything in his college classes. We're not talking about a crap school here, VT cracks the top 80 or so in the US News rankings.

Well, the acceptance rate at VT is 72%, though the academic profile of accepted students (judging from the admissions webpage) is above average. So VT admissions can be characterized as "if you are a decent student, you will probably get in".

Like most public universities with limited resources, admissions is probably based on a GPA/SAT matrix, quantitatively adjusted by special-admit factors, and with very minimal vetting (hard to do a deep dive on 19,000 applications with limited resources). We don't know very much about his academic profile, but since public school admissions tend to be based on more quantitative measures, the kid probably had the requisite grades and SAT scores to be admitted. Also, he apparently did enough at VT to have senior standing at the university.

In any case, academic performace isn't the issue here, the Unabomer was a Harvard undergrad and a Michigan Ph.D., after all.

[molson]

A frequent poster on one of the trashy law student/young lawyer boards decided it would be funny to post a joke threat directed towards Hastings Law School. The school was subsequently evacuated, and the FBI is now in contact with the poster:

Original thread:
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?th...=80&forum_id=2

Thread discussing evacuation
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?...c=1&forum_id=2

Obviously Hastings had no choice here - but it's amazing how easy it is to shut down a campus if you can stay annoymous on the Internet.

[Drake]

This e-mail was just sent to all the folks in my office. Might be of interest to some of you in case you're interested in coordinating similar events at your workplace.

The alumni of Virginia Tech have declared tomorrow “Orange and Maroon Effect” day in honor of the victims of the tragedy there this past Monday and to show support for the school. They are encouraging people around the country to wear orange and maroon, the school colors, on Friday.

We'd like to participate in this remembrance and invite all of you in our Registrar family to be part of the effort. We recognize that it's not practical to ask that people wear orange and maroon clothing (it's not part of your everyday wardrobe, I'm sure), so we will make orange and blue ribbons available in our break room so that you can participate.

[Klinglerware]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041801584.html

Originally Posted by The first few paragraphs of the article

Student Arrested Over Va. Tech Remarks

The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 18, 2007; 6:13 PM

BOULDER, Colo. -- A University of Colorado student pleaded not guilty Wednesday to making comments that classmates deemed sympathetic toward the gunman blamed for killing 32 students and himself at Virginia Tech, authorities said.

During a class discussion Tuesday of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech, Max Karson "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people," university police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said.

Several witnesses told investigators Karson, who turns 22 on Thursday, said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people," according to a police report. Witnesses "said they were afraid of him and afraid to come to class with him," Wiesley said.

Karson, of Denver, was arrested Tuesday on a misdemeanor charge of interfering with staff, faculty or students of an education institution.

Apparently he is known on campus as "The Yeti".

http://media.www.thecampuspress.com/...-2853159.shtml

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

I still have no idea where you're coming from. The school knew he was nuts, his parents knew he was nuts. It was addressed. There's probably a handful of people at Virginia Tech RIGHT NOW (along with EVERY other university, town, high school, and employer) who have equal or worse mental profiles that are known at this time.

What you haven't articulated yet is, if tomorrow, you're assigned crazy broad powers as "Chief Officer for Crazy People in America" how exactly do you handle these issues (legally and constitutionally?). All you're doing is poking holes, and grasping.

I still haven't seen anything that suggests the parents knew anything. And even if they had, that just makes the "a lot of people knew stuff separately, but none had all of the pieces of the puzzle" issue that much more relevant, IMO. The fact that so much was out there about this guy surprises me, actually. I thought this would be one of those "we had no idea" killers, but he's not. And your right about who is out there right now as potentially dangerous as this guy - that's the entire point.

I'm not saying I have the answers, but I think I'm raising questions that deserve to be looked at. If we, as a society, decide we shouldn't or can't go any further than we've gone, then fine. But don't sit there and tell me I have to provide a solution to an extremely complex issue just to be allowed to raise the question.

[Drake]

I wonder if he weighs more than a duck?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not saying I have the answers, but I think I'm raising questions that deserve to be looked at. If we, as a society, decide we shouldn't or can't go any further than we've gone, then fine. But don't sit there and tell me I have to provide a solution to an extremely complex issue just to be allowed to raise the question.

Could you sum up the questions you're raising then? Do you think there should be one, all-encompassing federal-level file on people with mental issues so "all the pieces are in one place".

When someone criticizes, it isn't unreasonable to demand a suggestion of a better approach. I understand a broad solution to all the world's mental health problems is over-complicated, but what if I asked it another way. There's a hypothetical student at the University of Virginia. He's been referred to mental counseling in the past, he's been removed from classes for creeping everyone out, some counselors even think he might be dangerous. He's had a handful of police run-ins for misdemeanor harrasment, but no violent criminal record of any kind. What SHOULD the school, and the state do?

(I mean these questions in a legtimate, civil conversation sort of say, wondering what other people think, not to try to "prove wrong" or to beat anyone up)

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041801584.html



Apparently he is known on campus as "The Yeti".

http://media.www.thecampuspress.com/...-2853159.shtml

And the witch-hunt begins...

*sigh*...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

(I mean these questions in a legtimate, civil conversation sort of say, wondering what other people think, not to try to "prove wrong" or to beat anyone up)

That's a key here, and something from experience I think KSyrup is good about here, we're trying to have a civil debate about this... But the problem is, I just feel like you (KSyrup) are pointing out flaws and that's it... I don't think it's fair to point out the flaw without a concrete suggestion on how to improve it...

I still just don't understand what that is besides notifying the parents? If that's the case I again ask - what if it's a 40 year old grad student? Or is it like molson suggests - do you want some oversweeping mental illness watch group? I'm just very confused as to what you're working towards.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And the witch-hunt begins...

*sigh*...

Reminds me of the time a couple days after September 11, 2001, when some paranoid office worker had our entire office park shut down because of some "mysterious envelope". Turned out to be a musical greeting card.

Really now, office lady, I doubt that some terrorist considers you that important.

[Ksyrup]

I guess the way I would answer that is to analogize this to other situations. Over the past decade or two, and particularly as technology has advanced, there has been an emphasis on greater coordination between multiple state and federal organizations with information as to a particular person - whether it be a convict, child molester, missing person, foster child, whatever - that has allowed for sharing of pertinent information. Some of that information may be confidential, and some of it may be public. My personal opinion is that we need something similar to address what I see as holes in dealing with mental illness. Regardless of whether that court order for Cho was confidential or not, I think it should have been made available to relevant state agencies. I don't even know if the existent of such an order is grounds to deny the purchase of a gun (?), but if it is, then that information should be shared.

Separately, I think we probably need to do a better job of making sure someone is assisting/monitoring these people, particularly those who have issues but aren't seen as needing in-patient or extended treatment. Either a case worker, or a psychologist, or even a family member should be at least included as a contact to ensure that this person isn't just treated for a temporary issue, then forgotten because he's no longer an immediate danger to himself or others. I don't think the underlying issue just goes away in most circumstances, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know if something like this is feasible given the varous legal issues that are implicated, but I think we need to look at it. It just seems like everyone is "doing their part" so isolated from each other that, even when they recognize an issue, they have no clue how serious it is or could be because they only see their sliver of the entire picture. And given something as complex as mental illness, I hate seeing the default "but he didn't act in a way that law enforcement could do something about it." I have no problem with that standard when we're talking about assessing criminal behavior. But with mental illness, looking for criminal behavior in order to trigger action shouldn't be the sole focus. Some of these people are probably better served outside the criminal justice system anyway. So we should be focusing on making sure these people are taken care of before they get to where law enforcement is necessary, for both their own protection and ours.

[JasonC23]

Originally Posted by Subby

I just finished reading a narrative about the events and can't recommend it enough for folks here. It's fairly long and highly emotional, but I feel better for reading it.

Thanks for posting this, Subby. I read it--chilling, but I'm glad I read it. Just amazing.

This will also make it easier to avoid the media coverage of all of this. I had to turn off newsradio this morning on the way to work because they kept broadcasting sound bites from the killer's video. I do not need to hear the ramblings of some completely batshit insane jackass killer, thanks. And I am not going to view the video or see any of the pictures of him if I can help it. I agree with many in here--the guy is already (in)famous enough, let's focus on those who are left and those who did not make it.

[BrianD]

Fox is discussing whether gun-carrying bans make sense on college campuses and suggesting that this tragedy could have been much less worse if other kids had guns. Somehow this just seems like trouble.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Fox is discussing whether gun-carrying bans make sense on college campuses and suggesting that this tragedy could have been much less worse if other kids had guns. Somehow this just seems like trouble.

Yeah, i think all too often it's presented that if another student had a gun, that he would have Dirty Harry "boom headshot'd" the killer and saved everyone, vs potentially just giving the killer another weapon to work with.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Fox is discussing whether gun-carrying bans make sense on college campuses and suggesting that this tragedy could have been much less worse if other kids had guns. Somehow this just seems like trouble.

Better hope the kids aren't drunk or 'shroomed up...

[King of New York]

I feel fairly confident that arming the student population at large would ultimately raise, not decrease, the number of campus shootings and fatalities.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Fox is discussing whether gun-carrying bans make sense on college campuses and suggesting that this tragedy could have been much less worse if other kids had guns. Somehow this just seems like trouble.

*shurg*.. At times I realize that this argument isn't necessarily any better/worse than making stronger gun control laws..

[Northwood_DK]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Better hope the kids aren't drunk or 'shroomed up...

Come-on you are talking about college kids. They would never do stuff like that.

Maybe it’s because I’m not American but for a European its just sound absolutely insane to suggest that more weapons would solve this problem.

[molson]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I feel fairly confident that arming the student population at large would ultimately raise, not decrease, the number of campus shootings and fatalities.

I don't think anyone's suggesting students be "armed", I think people are just responding for calls for campus-wide gun bans, and how silly such a premise is.

Though I'm not sure I can see Cho being all ready to go that morning and then realizing, "Damn it, these guns are illegal here - I guess I just won't be able to do this".

[Izulde]

I got into an argument with one of my friends last night who thought handguns should be banned and that it would've prevented the tragedy.

I pointed out that with someone as resourceful and determined as Cho, such an obstacle would've meant very little. He would have found a way to acquire those guns through illegal channels.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think anyone's suggesting students be "armed", I think people are just responding for calls for campus-wide gun bans, and how silly such a premise is.

There are definitely those in the Fox News/Right Wing talk crowd who are doing just that.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And the witch-hunt begins...

*sigh*...

Yep. And it's sad.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

There are definitely those in the Fox News/Right Wing talk crowd who are doing just that.

They're saying colleges should include a handgun the packet new students get with their dorm room keys, etc?