Shooting Rampage at Virgina Tech

[Inspector]

I'd also like to point out, since nobody else has, that there is a gigantic difference between simply having a gun on one's person and brandishing it or implying it is a legitimate means of extracting a value from someone. These are already criminal acts, without a no-gun policy.

Personally I find the idea of carrying a gun for self-defense (or defense of third parties) to be somewhat laughable.

Laugh all you like; it's your life.

[KendallJ]

There are two distinct questions. One is about rules against having guns in some location, but you're speaking about laws. Nobody is arguing that there should be laws against guns, and I didn't assume that Jennifer is addressing the question of laws and rights, but simply the issue of a campus rule. I may have misunderstood her intent: however, there is no right to carry a gun contrary to the wishes of the property owner, so no rights are violated by a rule agains guns in class.

Ah, ok. My bad. If that is correct, then Jen's comment is certainly valid. Apologies Jen!

[Inspector]

The main argument, as I see it, for not bothering with rules against carrying weapons is that they are essentially impossible to enforce (unless you intend to invest in metal detectors and searches for everyone entering your building/campus) and any rule that is impossible to enforce undermines the authority of the rule-making body. You end up with drama students getting harrassed for carrying a prop sword across the campus while their peers are packing and getting away with it. It's absurd.

That's my point exactly. Without some pretty darn total enforcement, such rules are completely foolish.

[gags]

Given the proliferation of weapons in prisons, I don't know how you would accomplish such a thing.

[Inspector]

Given the proliferation of weapons in prisons, I don't know how you would accomplish such a thing.

It raises the question: since we are talking private property here, why not just profile? Why not just throw out anyone who is even remotely unstable or threatening?

[RationalBiker]

Personally I find the idea of carrying a gun for self-defense (or defense of third parties) to be somewhat laughable.

I don't really find it "laughable" to have another available option when you "stay calm, use brain" given certain other factors. However, I agree with you that there is a HUGE statistical unlikelihood that you will get be murdered (depending on where you live). Anybody that tries to convince you otherwise is a fear-mongerer.

Assuming the Dayton you live in is in Ohio, the statewide statistics suggest you have a 5.1 in 100,000 chance in being a murder victim. This discounts a whole host of factors that an intelligent person can employ to skew the odds in their favor (of which firearms carrying can be one of those factors). In Dayton specifically, there were 32 homicides in a city of 160,363 people, while still significantly unlikely, your odds just went up. This is based on reported crime for 2005. This of course does not count all types of crime of which you could be a victim, merely those in which you lose your life.

So it is quite rational to consider the overall likelihood of becoming such a victim and weighing it against the implications of carrying a firearm and all the responsibilities that go with that as well as the potential of introducing a firearm in a situation where none existed prior to that. Firearms are not necessarily a positive option for people who are untrained, don't have the mindset to employ them, don't have the good judgement as to when to employ them, and may not have the physical skills necessary to retain them.

[MisterSwig]

His plan was to kill himself all along.

I'm disappointed by how quickly media coverage of Cho's plan--and his execution of that plan--dissipated after the partial release of his "multimedia manifesto." It seems that people only want to discuss gun control now.

I think it is possible that Cho's first victim, Emily Jane Hilscher, was primarily intended to be a diversion, since the police so far have found no connection between the two. Her dorm was on the opposite side of the campus from Norris Hall, where the main attack took place.

A lot of planning went into Cho's attack, perhaps more planning than went into the Columbine massacre. Columbine was perpetrated by two high schoolers who were not exceptional planners. Their diversion attempt failed. Most of their bombs didn't work, and they weren't good at crowd control. They were punk kids who thought they were "gods." But Cho was only one man, a smart man with a polished plan for maximum destruction. He even made a serious attempt to control some of the media coverage of his attack. People like Cho are going to learn from him, and this problem is only going to get worse, unless we figure out what drives these suicidal executioners and start to combat their beliefs.

Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Cho Seung-Hui. These are methodical killers for some budding cause. They are evil, but not crazy. If the media were doing its job, it would be investigating the cause for which these killers kill. It would be taking that manifesto package seriously, instead of working hard to suppress it, yet at the same time trying to convince us that it is meaningless and won't help us understand Cho.

Who are "the weak and defenseless"? Are people like Cho engaged in some kind of purely evolutionary battle between the strong and the weak? Are we, the strong, being attacked by the weak? Where are these killers learning their sick ideology and rhetoric?

Edited April 27, 2007 by MisterSwig