VA Tech Shootings...The Discussion Thread- Page 2

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:48pm

I would indeed miss you, papa.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:52pm

I work with crazy people every day...

I can't have them locked up unless they actually do something to harm me or someone else....

[ABSteel]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:53pm

Should there be harsher standards for buying a pistol, or rifle, or any weapon, for that matter? The guy who sold him the pistol, or maybe both, didn't even ask why he wanted it. If he would've asked, then maybe Cho would've said why.

The killer legally got his hands on pistols that he used to shoot his classmates.

There's something wrong with that.

I don't think there's any real way to know if someone's about to snap. Maybe people should just reach out more. Be nicer. Not so involved with themselves, or their own clique.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:55pm

The problem lies in the fact that if someone really wants to kill people, it's not that difficult and there's not much that anyone can do about it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 12:56pm

no, i'm sure he would have responded, "well see, chum, i have this plan, y'see, to whack out my ex, her new fella and an 'ole lot of chappies and chippies across campus. this glock will make a sparking good start at that, wot?"

[ABSteel]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:01pm

I doubt he would've said that, but he might've said something to let the guy know that, "This probably isn't a good idea" and then refuse to sell.

But, the killer would've went somewhere else...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:10pm

It was revealed this morning that after yet another stalking incident back in 2005, he appeared unstable and suicidal, so the police took him to a mental health facility to which he voluntarily committed himself -- so obviously the police were aware on several occasions over the past couple of years that he was disturbed and potentially a danger to himself, if not to others. And incidentally, had they "involuntarily" committed him, it's quite possible that this incident wouldn't have happened, because such information is reported to a central database and would have shown up in his background check, thereby preventing him from buying any guns.

It's a shame that the police, the mental health experts, the faculty and many of his felow students knew that he was a profoundly mentally unstable individual, yet there were no proactive measures employed (or any real follow-up with him following his commitment) that might have led to his removal from campus to get the full amount of treatment that he obviously needed. Had the powers-that-be been a bit more aggressive -- and given that he was taken into police custody several times regarding his stalking of women on campus, it was within the authority of the university to expel or suspend him from school for exactly that reason -- perhaps this wouldn't have happened.

[ABSteel]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:13pm

It may not have happened then, but maybe next week, next month?

If someone wants to kill someone else, they're going to do it.

[pab]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:27pm

"It was revealed this morning that after yet another stalking incident back in 2005, he appeared unstable and suicidal, so the police took him to a mental health facility to which he voluntarily committed himself -- so obviously the police were aware on several occasions over the past couple of years that he was disturbed and potentially a danger to himself, if not to others."

I think that it was also stated in that report that the two females involved in the stalking incident decided that they did not want to press charges so there was no reason to hold him and he was released.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:29pm

Right, Margot, and I wonder if there are EVER any followups on this type of person, or are people too lazy to do anything? Lazy or maybe uncaring.

I remember the Lisa Steinberg case when there were red flags but not enough people to care.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:29pm

A good part of the problem is that no one had access to all of the different pieces of information that when added together paint a picture of a very disturbed young man. Each tidbit, by itself, may be disquieting, but not necessarily bad enough to warrant a drastic reaction.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:39pm

I also think part of the problem is that the man killed himself. The angry and distraught people left behind have no one alive to blame. Therefore, they have to look at who's still alive to persecute for what a dead man did.

I think the bigger issue here is why campus wasn't on lockdown immediately after the first shootings. I've heard the excuses, but they seem pretty lame to me. So many people could have been saved.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:39pm

I personally would feel A LOT safer if someone so disturbed would have been able to be prevented from acquiring lethal weapons legally with such total ease (no waiting periods etc.....). Had his background check included an involuntary committal, his only other option at that point would have been to somehow acquire his weapons on the illegal underground gun market, which I confess I know little about, but I would guess would be far more difficult for a socially inept young man with no (apparent) criminal ties to be able to do in a tiny remote rural Virgina town. Had such obstacles delayed his ability to acquire a gun just three weeks, classes would have been over at that point and as a senior he'd have graduated, which may have prevented this massacre from happening at VT.

Now, yes, perhaps he'd still have wanted to exact revenge in some form and perhaps would have possibly at some point in the future gone on a similar rampage, there's also the possibility that something -- leaving the pressures of school and gettting out of the environment that caused him so much pain and depression, going back home which perhaps might serve to stabilize his mood somewhat, or most importantly someone recognizing his problems and helping him get to REAL treatment -- might have come along and prevented this tragedy from happening anywhere at any time in the future.

Updated On: 4/18/07 at 01:39 PM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:40pm

I truly can see where you're coming from, Margo, but you have to understand the legal limits of what authorities and mental health care providers (particularly ones on a university campus) can do in a given situation. To be involuntarily committed, a person has to pose an immediate danger to self or others and not volunteer to be committed themselves. This person obviously acknowledged that he needed to see someone and did on that occasion. He was surely advised as to follow-up treatment, but one cannot force, at leas as it stands now, someone to comply with recommended treatment. Health records aren't even released to parents of students without consent unless, again, there is an immediate safety concern (which must include intent and a plan). Yes, it absolutely is tragic that this person wasn't involuntarily committed so that it appeared on his record, but if there is a failing, it is likely on the part of the system. This is a difficult balance between the rights of students and concern for the safety of others.

A lot of the students feel that the media has been exploitative, particularly with the rush to point fingers at the administration and campus police without knowing the details. There will be a time for inquiry, but allow time for mourning before playing the blame game. Yet heartbroken students are immediately asked to say that they are angry at the administration. And undoubtedly some are, but the prolonged standing ovation that President Steger received at the convocation yesterday indicates that he has the support of, I would guess, most of the student body and their parents. It is very possible that things could have been handled differently (and equally possible that nothing else would have changed this outcome), but in the two days following this horrible tragedy, pointing fingers helps no one.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:40pm

Nicely said, Margo.

[ABSteel]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:43pm

I also heard that he never went home.

"Break was coming up, and he would've been on campus by himself," said one of the roommates.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:44pm

I'm going back to his home life as a child. I heard reports that he never spoke to anyone, was a loner, and I forget what else. Didn't his parents think there was anything wrong with their son? Perhaps they did and took measures, but I haven't heard anything to that effect yet.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:49pm

Since his parents and sister have gone into hiding and not contacted the media to this point, we'll have to wait until they come forward to get a better picture of how he was during his childhood and adolescence. It is interesting that a couple of his high school classmates have come forward and stated that he was the same sort of quiet, withdrawn, loner during his time with them in school. A couple couldn't even remember his name and only recognized him when his picture was splashed on the news (and apparently they went to a very small high school).

Updated On: 4/18/07 at 01:49 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 1:50pm

I have definitely wondered what is up with the parents, too.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 2:15pm

There's another interesting thought regarding a college's rights and responsibilities regarding its students. Colleges are their own little fiefdoms with their own sets of rules, regulations and guidelines that in some cases supercede the laws of the US and the state within which they are based. College can and do set policies that openly deny students certain civil liberties and rights they would otherwise have under the constitution and state and local law. Some have speech codes which give them the right to expel a student using certain racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive terms. Some school have dress codes and rules about hair length. Some have mandatory chapel attendance requirements. Some, like Bob Jones University did at one time, ban interracial dating. And many, like Virginia Tech, ban weapons on campus.

While you are on their campus, a university has the right to expel or suspend you for doing all manner of things that would be otherwise well within your rights under the constitution. So my point is, vis-a-vis how the university's hands were somehow tied by the existing laws in being able to deal with this obviously troubled student, that needn't be so. The fact is, any university COULD put rules in place stating that anyone found to be stalking another student can be suspended, expelled or forced to undergo longterm counseling and treatment and until you are cleared by a team of mental health experts, you are not permitted to attend classes. Perhaps the police cannot arrest you if your victims refuse to cooperate and perhaps a non-university mental health facility doesn't have the right under the law to involuntarily commit you, but nevertheless the school still would have the right to take whatever measures it deems appropriate for you and for the interests and safety of the university community. And if you don't like it and refuse to comply, you'll simply be expelled.

Now, understand I'm just thinking out loud here and tossing out a few ideas so don't slam me on the details, but it strikes me that VA Tech and thousands of colleges and universities across the country might be beginning a discussion in the coming weeks and months about just how to deal with these kinds of students in the future. If the current laws don't allow the police and the mental health community to really do ANYTHING with obviously distrurbed and potentially dangerous individuals, then perhaps universities need to take it upon themselves to use the (downright autocratic) power that they do have to set up policies to maybe prevent a catastrophe like this happening again in the future.

Updated On: 4/18/07 at 02:15 PM

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 2:16pm

This tragic shooting has really made my brain spin. I'd previously held a very libertarian (if occasionally conflicted) stance on gun control. It's our right to own weapons if we so desire; guns don't kill people, people kill people; some people view owning a weapon as necessary self-defense, and I have no right to take that security away from them... and so on, and so on.

However, the constitutional amendment that states our right to bear arms was written quite a while ago - in a completely different time. A time when it was necessary to hunt to feed your family. A time with no organized, universal military defense system. A time when neighbors were scarce, and a bear could be seen wandering through one's backyard. These are not the circumstances in which we now live.

And while many consider owning a gun a basic freedom, are we really free in a society which needs metal detectors in junior high schools in order to feel safe? Can America really call itself the home of the brave if we need to lock up every college student who writes disturbing plays, on the off chance they might acquire a gun and start shooting their classmates? I'm starting to feel that much, MUCH stricter gun control is in order.

I'm open to discussion on this...

[ABSteel]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 2:22pm

"These are not the circumstances in which we now live."

That's why I think the 4th amendment should be changed.

Besides, there are other weapons to use in defense. Knives, baseball bats, fireplace poker (my personal choice).

[robbiej]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 2:27pm

I don't think we'll ever get to 'NO GUNS' in our society. At least in my lifetime. However, I believe stricter regulations are ABSOLUTELY needed...and they need to be Federalized.

On HuffPo yesterday, Jane Smiley made an obvious but, to me, at least, interesting observation about guns:

"guns have no other purpose than killing someone or something. All the other murder weapons Americans use, from automobiles to blunt objects, exist for another purpose and sometimes are used to kill. But guns are manufactured and bought to kill. They invite their owners to think about killing, to practice killing, and, eventually, to kill, if not other people, then animals. They are objects of temptation, and every so often, someone comes along who cannot resist the temptation--someone who would not have murdered, or murdered so many, if he did not have a gun, if he were reduced to a knife or a bludgeon or his own strength. I wish that the right wing would admit that, while people kill people and even an "automatic" weapon needs a shooter, people with guns kill more people than people without guns do."

Guns are simply and instrument of death. That must be taken into account...and respected. The whole 'guns don't kill people. People kill people' thing always makes me wonder, "Then why do we let people have guns!?"

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 2:33pm

I know this is pessimistic thinking, but even if all guns were outlawed, someone who wanted one could get one. Look at the drug situation.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/18/07 at 3:01pm

well, there is that 1995 study by gary kleck (based on a survey of 4,977 americans) that estimated the number of times handguns were used in self-defense at between 800,000 and 2.5 million. so it's not all about killing.