Hiromi_X

Sad story indeed...
If I were Marilyn Manson, or a video games firm executives, I wouldn't feel too good :) I'm ready to bet all the blame will be put on them.

I agree with you but I can't help thinking that if guns couldn't be bought more easily than a pack a gum, going ballistic would be a tat more difficult. But you could answer there's the Canadian example...
I guess humans can't stop killing each other.

Btw, I have noticed that movies get tougher ratings in the US when you see a nipple than a severed head ("300" is rated I can't remember what because of the "sex" scene...). Does that strike you as well? or is it just me and my perverted French culture? Then again, in my country, we show full frontal female nudity for advertising a yogurt...

Remember kids, killing is fun, physical proximity is evil...

People want there to be a reason for something like this. They want to know "why" my child, my friend was a victim. they want there to be something they can control. And you're right, we can't fix things like this. The "quick fix" answers don't work, history is full of those failed attempts that turned into their own nightmares. For instance, New York City has some of the strictest gun control laws anywhere and still has one of the highest incidences of gun crime.

There are no quick fixes. And even if there were, someone who is determined enough will still find a way to do something like this.

The cow's escaped - we'd better run out and lock the barn up tight.

I think you have revealed a truth about human societies, regardless of how small. We are flawed creatures and with freedom there is risk. I personally am willing to accept that risk with the freedoms. The reality is that in life there may not be easy, foolproof solutions in a dynamic world and that expecting to have one or to be able to have a politician supply one only sets you up for disappointment and lies. It won't stop the media and it's gotcha mentality from exploiting this, blowing it up so that the real issues are barely recognizable, and parading a series of "experts" in front of the camera looking to direct public policy from non-elected seats of authority. So we lose some precious innocent lives, our dignity, and our perspective in one blow... how sad.

Just a few notes:

"I agree with you but I can't help thinking that if guns couldn't be bought more easily than a pack a gum, going ballistic would be a tat more difficult." -Emmanuel [corrected attribution -- L'Etat]

-This isn't close to being true. Even in Virginia you need to fill out forms, show id and submit to a background check with a 10 day wait period as well. You may not think that is enough but it is not like walking into a convenience store and picking up chicklets. I will agree that we have a skewed approach to violence and physicality(specifically nudity and sex). We certainly could do with a substantative scale back of the former and a less shame based approach to the latter.

-The Mad Scot
"In the penumbra the cold light of reality and the illusory darkness of dreams lies a realm of infinite possibilities called... madness."

"This isn't close to being true. Even in Virginia you need to fill out forms, show id and submit to a background check with a 10 day wait period as well. You may not think that is enough but it is not like walking into a convenience store and picking up chicklets."

Mad Scot, sorry for the voluntary exageration, but I guess you see my point. What I meant is, even if there are procedures, people just shouldn't be able to buy fire arms. I know this is a freedom stated in the American Constitution, and I respect this. But even if I too am ready to take the risks that come with having liberties and rights, I think this may be too high a price: I'd gladly exchange my right to buy a weapon in exchange for not having a person close to me shot for just being here at the wrong moment.

On a sad but practical note, I suggest installing solid core metal doors with locks and peepholes on all school (elementary through college) classroooms in the States. Tragically, we've had mass murders in schools at every level, and we hear repeated stories about students/teachers barricading themselves in classrooms with nuts shooting through the doors, as just happened again in Blacksburg. I suppose we have to be philosophical (if not fatalistic) about life in the States, but we should be practical/realistic in our approach to life as well.

All this said, I've got two daughters in college in the States and a boy in high school in South America. One of those boys they carried out of Norris Hall in Blacksburg looked a lot like my boy. Makes me feel bad, I tell you.....

Exactly!

One thing that strikes me about most of these mass killing incidents:
1. In the aftermath there is typically an outcry about the supposed growing availability of high-powered firearms.
2. In fact the shooters almost always use relatively established firearm technologies that have been widely available to consumers for decades and decades. This case is no exception. The shooter had a Glock 19. I've owned one (got rid of it: the wide grip to accommodate a double stack mag made my hand hurt after a day of shooting). In essence, it is just a semi-auto mag-fed pistol from a general class of weapons that has been available to consumers and popular since at least 1911 (i'm thinking of Browning's M1911 .45acp design). And the lenient gun sale standards of Va were the national norm in most states in all but the last couple of decades.

The point I guess I'm getting at is that the available firepower in terms of what is actually used by these offenders in the vast majority of cases represents stuff that was widely available and readily for at least nine decades.* And yet there were no mass school shootings like this in the Fifties. Whatever one's feelings about gun control, I think we are going to have to recognize the possibility that it is not so much the available gun technology that has changed. Something about us has changed. We have had these tools for a long time and it is only comparatively recently that some among us have chosen to use them for these terrible ends.

As for "I'd gladly exchange my right to buy a weapon in exchange for not having a person close to me shot for just being here at the wrong moment.", that's all well and good, but (with respect) the issue here is whether your preferences should become the justification for curtailing someone else's constitutional rights. As a gun owner, I would accept the second amendment being voided by the constitutionally provided mechanisms (what kind of a citizen of a republic would I be if I wouldn't?). What I will not accept (and I suspect, when push comes to shove, neither will the vast majority of my countrymen) is the removal of a constitutional right (from the second or any other amendment) by anything other than constitutional means. Thus, while can accept gun regulation (the second amendment clearly allows for it), I cannot accept the loss of a fundamental right in principle to bear arms.

By the way, fair disclosure: I am all too aware of this problem. As a grad student, I unknowingly wandered down to Franklin St. in Chapel Hill, NC only a moment after a crazed gunmen killed a bunch of people there. These are pretty difficult scenes to behold, I can tell you.

*And indeed, in some respects high fire power is actually less available now: witness the relatively easily acquired Thompson submachine guns of the Twenties and Thirties, which would today be difficult if not impossible to get, even in lenient gun states like Va (the commercially available Tommy guns today are not full auto). In a lifetime of shooting, I've only fired full auto weapons twice, and that was under highly restrictive and structured circumstances at a range, and the owners of said weapons had had to spend *years* getting the permits for them.

By the by, I read the Va Tech gunman's plays (they are floating around online). Maybe I'm completely bollixing the symbolism in them (but hey, I spent my collage years in math, econ and computer science courses, not English lit), but from what he wrote I have a very strange feeling that this kid was the victim of sexual abuse at some point. The idea of the powerless but angry young man confronted by sexual threat (especially from an older man) seems to permeate his stuff. He also seems pretty pre-occupied by the idea of class and financial inequity.

And it goes without saying that his writing is as angry and violent as hell.

The thing that strikes me most about these incidents is that it brings out the gun control pussies and the "my massive firepower is compensating for something" blowhards in equal measure.

Not every incident of violence is a battle for the soul of the Second Amendment. Can't y'all go argue about baseball stats or something?

Ray,
But the season is only 2 weeks old.

Correction: My apologies but having looked into things more, I discovered that my information was somewhat dated. There is no longer a 9 day wait period for guns in Virginia. They do an instant background check that allows a person to be cleared, literally in minutes. That was the case here. I just want Emmanuel to know that when I am wrong on data then I will be the one to take the foot out of my mouth and apologize. :-)

-The Mad Scot

I can't help but feel sorry for the victims of this attack, and I understand the urge that drives people to say "something must be done!," but I agree with you, Hiromi. There are people who are mentally ill, and people who are evil, and they do terrible things, and some just don't care about the consequences of their actions.

Lest we forget, the Oklahoma City bombing was accomplished with some fertilizer and some diesel fuel. And if you remember the Happy Land Social Club fire in NY City, forty people were killed with one pint of gasoline.

Drunk drivers kill about 45 people every week, and alcohol is a lot easier to buy than a gun--it's as easy as buying a pack of gum, you might say.

I think Peter has it right when he says that there is something different about our society today. There is some lack of community, a sense that I am not my brother's keeper, which prevents us from getting involved in someone else's problems.

To me, the feeling that "there oughta be a law" is just another example of the desire to avoid having to be personally responsible for getting involved in what is going on around us.

I'm not a gun nut, and I don't fear the repeal of the second amendment. However, had anyone in the room been carrying a weapon and been well-trained in it's use, this particular person might have been stopped sooner.

Actually, even though I am a gun owner and believe in the second amendment, I am not sure that carrying guns all over the place will make us safer. It is true that this little asshole would have been ventilated, and quickly, by others had they been armed. But the trouble is that against such net savings of life in instances like these you'd have to figure in the everyday moron factor. Specifically, guns are rather like power tools, cars, etc. in that, were everyone to be armed and carrying, they are probably actually more dangerous at the population level in a banal than acute sort of way: far more people will be accidentally killed by careless jerks than purposefully killed by malicious jerks. Accidental discharges would become a major cause of death and serious injury. At a minimum, if we were to let people carry anywhere in my state, we better make the permit process and competency test for doing so a hell of a lot tougher than is the case with driving automobiles.

But, sort of viz what Hiromi is saying, this still wouldn't really stop people like this. It reminds me of the old maxim in the Secret Service: despite all of the greater security surrounding the American President, the odds of `success' for a determined assassin, one willing to trade his life for the President's, are probably not too bad. A really determined sicko will be able to inflict harm. If nothing else, if we all armed ourselves routinely (and hence could offer real resistance to the crazed gunmen) these really crazy people will just switch to the suicide attack tactics we've seen in Iraq and Israel (which have been highly devastating, despite the efforts of extremely professional, coordinated and highly armed military forces to stop them).

By the way, I should add that most people simply wouldn't carry all the time anyway, even if they were legally allowed to do so. I wouldn't. Carrying a pistol is a royal pain. You can't really sit comfortably with a waist holster and they make your belt and pants sag constantly, shoulder holsters make you sweat and chafe, pistols are generally pretty heavy (it would probably be the heaviest single item you were carrying, and by far), etc. etc. For women especially, it would be one tough thing to accessorize around. You'd always be terrified of leaving it in a cafe or something. You'd always have to carry some way of locking it down at, say, the gym. Etc.

Everyone I've ever known who had to carry one for their job (ie cops) talked about what a monumental pain in the butt they are. And things like rifles and shotguns are so impractical to carry around every day its just silly.

So, its moot anyway.

I think you are right Hiromi. Individual psychopaths are difficult to deal with. Always have been. Always will be. A post on BoingBoing.net sent me to this wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Turns out the worst school attack did not use guns and did not happen recently. Not that that makes it better for anyone at Virginia Tech.

First. Karl's 'cow' comment was so great! That's how local news anchors across our land should begin each broadcast every night.

Second. I don't have time for the nuance required to analyze this event to my satisfaction.
Simply, I just felt like it's a symptom of a violence loving culture. My first reaction was for the Gov. to make a PSA. "Object of your affection got you down?" Feel like killing? Join the the armed services!" (bad joke, I kinda feel they're miss-used at the moment)

I really feel too strongly about the loss of innocent life and the impact on their families to really say much.

Put me down for being against gun control and more laws. The problem is much deeper than that.

OH, one more thing. If every channel on my cable wouldn't be talking about it non-stop and playing his videos and showing his pictures but instead using the time to talk about something positive or imploring people to turn off the TV.......then perhaps that might be a step in the right direction. There's probably someone somewhere noting the facts so they can break the record.

I don't have much interest in gun control or gun ownership really, and I don't think either hobbyhorse is very applicable here. But I have to say that I teach in a university and, for me, the idea of a university populated by people who are armed is not at reconciliable with civilized society.

Hmmm... should be 'not at all reconciliable'...

Er, 'reconcilable'. Fuck it, I'm going to bed.

Mad Scot, thanks for the correction.

I'm not afraid of weapons, and I don't mind people owning one. I actually learned how to properly carry and handle one.

I guess my point is that, all around the world, a lot of people might not resist the urge to use a weapon against someone else. And the gun is too effective of a weapon. Don't faciliate them the job. Have them use plastic forks... (Btw, a genuine question: under your constitution, one has the right to bear arms, any kind of weapon? would be fun to see people in the streets with katanas or spiked club....)

I think it all relates to power at a certain level. If you are superior to someone, and if you are not "prepared", you can do some f**cking damages. The example are so numerous.

But I have to say that I teach in a university and, for me, the idea of a university populated by people who are armed is not at reconciliable with civilized society.

But you teach in a university physically located in this society, right? So is this another incarnation of the dream (rarely acknowledged as such) that universities should, in effect, be islands of unreality?

Besides, I too teach at a University, and have to say that armed or not they are a zoo for savages in an Edith Wharton kind of way. And sometimes (reflecting on Hiromi's experiences) in an everyday street kind of way.

Universities are a part of their surrounding culture.

Rarely acknowledged? I teach at a university that would put in a drive-through window for diplomas if they thought that the 'customers' wanted it. In my experience, the idea of a university that hangs back from the general culture in any way, or even makes an impact on that culture, is lauged at by administration as well as students. On the other hand, we're located in a pretty goombah part of the country. Maybe it's different elsewhere. But the cynical view is pretty much doctrine at our universtiy, which sees itself as totally driven by the larger culture.

Hiromi,
Yeah, but even within universities there is no consensus (attend a faculty meeting sometime: they can't even reach agreement on even trivial things), at any level, on what that pocket should be. The is Skull and Bones, say, is one thing but Yale overall is a very different, and far less focused, story. That consensus just doesn't exist, and so then you basically end up more or less rooted in the cross-currents of your society/

By the by, Rufus, total agreement: what universities are *really* becoming is bottom line corporations.

Hiromi,
If you want an interesting piece on this struggle to define the environment in the University setting, I would suggest checking out the New Yorker article on the tectonic pressures beneath the surface at Duke that created the backdrop for the Duke rape case (accessible here: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/04/060904fa_fact?currentPage=1). Its a kind of interesting look at the struggle to reach the kind of focus you are talking about.

My point was that there's nothing wrong with articulating a vision of how you'd like your pocket of society to be like, even if it's "another incarnation of the dream (rarely acknowledged as such) that universities should, in effect, be islands of unreality"

Yes, but that implies a focus on certain preferences and priorities. Eventually visions require such details to be implemented, or else they really have no practical content.

I gave you the article more than anything b/c I thought it very knowingly captured the idea of these adversarial constituencies beneath the surface a most universities and battling over the whole "vision thing" regarding the institution.

Anyway, I am off to SE Asia in a few hours. As always, its been fun.

"I'm not a gun nut, and I don't fear the repeal of the second amendment. However, had anyone in the room been carrying a weapon and been well-trained in it's use, this particular person might have been stopped sooner."

That's a lot of conditions. I doubt that if anyone was carrying a weapon that the outcome would have been any different. The assailant had no value of life including his own. That gives him a great advantage when facing someone who does. Did you see any of the well trained police/security going into that building by themselves? Why, because they were trained not to do that and wait until they had superior numbers to minimize the damage of a single shooter. A psychotic has no such compulsion and will shoot at anything. Worse, I can think of no better way for such a person to obtain a more powerful weapon by prying it from the cold dead fingers of their victim.

As for what Hiromi's point, I agree that there is not much one can do to stop a deranged person from harming others. The only defense we have is awareness. As more information comes out, it is amazing that his professor's and courts all saw that he was troubled and a threat to himself and others. He obviously had psychiatric help because he was on medication, but the limits of the law set him free. If there is anything that can be done, I would say to tighten the rules on people who are a danger to themselves and others.

The other area is start regulating guns. Make owners get a license in which they renew and make them pay for insurance just like they do cars. I would also make everyone who owns a gun join a state run militia, but I would not outlaw guns.

tighten the rules on people who are a danger to themselves and others

Uh...if we did that, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because you wouldn't be reading this blog, because dear Ms. H. would be locked away where she can't hurt you. Or haven't you read the archives from last summer?

Even worse, she might actually be dead because at least one of the people who helped save her would have been locked up years before for the same reasons and would never have met her.

"Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives. When he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?" Be careful what you wish for.

I'm sure that H could have access to the internet from a mental facility and probably would be considered to be a good tool to monitor her state of mind.

"Even worse, she might actually be dead because at least one of the people who helped save her would have been locked up years before for the same reasons and would never have met her."

So if there was another psychotic killer at Virgina Tech he would have killed Cho and saved everyones life?

We can't change what has happened, but we can review and see whether or not there is a need to modify laws or implement new ones them. The deaths demonstrate that something might have gone wrong with the system. There is the chance that they did nothing wrong and nothing will be changed. Even if something did go wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if they did not change anything given the cost medical care. The important part is that people who have undergone the mental health experience participate in the process. If the process doesn't include them, then nothing is going to change for the better.

At lunch a week ago, some co-workers and I were pondering the possibility of someone going postal from the workload and government edicts that regulate where I work. Today, it happened in Houston. What's different now from the 1950's and 60's?
Guns are still guns. I look at my kids toys- and hey- compared to toys 10 years ago, everything is safe. No sharp edges, nothing to hurt themselves with. I am thankful for the safe toys, but shudder to think about the tome of regulations that made it possible. I also think everyone is so busy documenting or following these regulations, they really stopped thinking about the original problem that really needed solving.
If a nut like Cho stepped into a gun shop in the 60s I don't think a small shop owner would sell him a gun - just because it didn't feel right. Now, someone making minimum wage checks for ID, runs it into a computer and makes the sale and the customer who is buying thinks it's his right to buy it.
This was on NPR: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/04/18/PM200704184.html
comparing buying a gun to, not gum but, prescription medicines- like anti-depressants. Makes several points about lack of public health care, and the lack of qualifications needed to sell a gun. Didn't we have lobotomies available at state mental hospitals in the 50's? Now we just run around like we had one, or should have had one- but we still have ID and can get a gun.

If a nut like Cho stepped into a gun shop in the 60s I don't think a small shop owner would sell him a gun - just because it didn't feel right. Now, someone making minimum wage checks for ID, runs it into a computer and makes the sale and the customer who is buying thinks it's his right to buy it.

Carl, with respect, some reality checks:
-There is no evidence that gun shop owners in the 60s were more careful, and the check system today is a lot more elaborate and exact.
-I have been shooting all my life and at one time or another have bought 12-15 guns. I have always been impressed by the degree of knowledge of the sales clerk selling the gun to me. I probably know more about guns (and shoot them far better) than the average American, and yet have always been helped by people who had forgotten more about guns than I've ever known. Try buying a home entertainment system at BestBuy and a Glock at any established gun store, and then tell me if you still stand by your assertion about gun salesman.
-The small gunshop owner has *less* incentive to be careful, since he represents comparatively shallow pockets should there be a civil action.
-My dad, who has also been exposed to guns all his life, would strongly disagree with you in terms of the ease of getting guns now and then. Now, it is a pain. When he was a kid (the 40s and 50s) we were barely out of the age of over-the-counter Tommy guns. He bought his first 1911-style .45 over the counter (at a drugstore!), with no checks whatsoever.
The good old days really were not that good.

Now, as for the Hiromi-Bruce exchange:
Hiromi, ignore him. There is no profit in answering that. Those who know can see the arch that you have followed. Even cynical assholes like me have to acknowledge the enormous extent of your achievement. And, on a practical level, coming out of this tragedy at Vtech there is about as much chance of people like you being locked up as of people like me becoming outlaws for our guns...which is to say that there is about a snowball's chance in hell of it happening.

I don't believe cooler heads prevail. I just think it is sufficiently difficult to achieve any substantive change in our system that there is pretty constant regression to the status quo ex ante. And to that end, witness what is happening in the war on terror: an assault on civil liberties mild by historical standards (and all, save your exasperated comments and instead read about Lincoln or FDR's wartime policies) is even now on the whole losing its political and legal momentum.