Shooting Rampage at Virgina Tech

[RationalBiker]

Yeah that's true too. But then someone with a 9mm won't really have a chance against someone with a m16, and someone with a shotgun won't really have a chance against someone with a bazuka. What about terrorists with say, biological agents or a suitcase nuke? The point is in almost all personal defense type situations, a mace spray or a tazer is just as good as a gun.

Do you realize how much the first two sentences contradict the third sentence here? To suggest a person with a pistol has no chance against a guy with M16 is not necessarily true, but a guy with mace or a tazer is certainly worse off against the guy with an M16 or a handgun. Sorry, but mace or a tazer are definitely not as good as a gun.

Now certainly there is an issue of where one "draws the line" about what type of weapons are acceptable, but the overarching principle is being careful about how much a rational man's life is restricted (and by extension placed in jeopardy) by the actions of the much smaller minority of people with evil intent who would have no concern for such regulations. The "where to draw the line" question has been the topic of other threads, but I'm primarily referring to smaller arms, things which I think can be legimately referred to as personal defense weapons. Most of the larger weapons you speak of go beyond personal defense because their use by design will in all probabilty result in mass destruction and the violation of other peoples rights in the process. By example, a suitcase nuke is not a defensive weapon because the "defender" will also die in the process. There is no reason to expect or assume that a person using a handgun will necessarily kill others or himself in the process of defending himself, though certainly the possibility exists.

If you don't wish to keep this within the context of that personal defense, I suggest use a different thread to address the "where we draw the line" issue.

Given that you're a cop,

This type of questioning opens the door for me to argue for authority, which we both know is of little use. Being a cop exposes me to certain experiences most people may not have to face, but being a rational man capable of thinking in terms of principles and rights is far more important to my position than my occupation. I may at times refer to my experiences as a cop, but I hope that the larger foundation of my argument is based on the reasoning and how it relates to the experience, and not on my experience alone.

I'm fully aware of the idea that a society with freer access to firearms likely means I will face more situations in which people are likely to be armed. But given that I think of this in terms of the principles involved, that is a risk I'm willing to take. And as you noted, it's dangerous for me to assume when I'm dealing with people that they are not armed. Likewise, you poise the unrealistic alternative that I would always definitely know that a person was armed upon responding to a call just because there was freer access to guns. This is not a logical alternative. At best you can say that there may be a higher probablity of encountering a person with a gun. I'm fine with this.

Now one of the problems "we" have in this thread is that when you refer to "we", you are in Taiwan (or at least that's where you appear to be coming from) and I'm in the United States. What you do for personal defense in Taiwan is of little interest to me, and I expect it to have little or no impact on what "we" do in the United States. Whatever laws exist in either country are are separate issue from what laws SHOULD exist based on the premise that we are discussing applications of Objectivism. However, if you must refer to existing law, it would be important for you to distinguish between whose law you are talking about, Taiwan or the US. For instance, in the US you CAN own a fully automatic machine gun, but you can't carry it around with you all the time. It is required that a person obtain a certain level of firearms licensing and pay a government tax, but one can legally own a machine gun in the US. However, because of the restrictive government controls on automatic weapons, my encounters with automatic weapons on the street are more typically in the hands of people who obtained them by illegal means and who had them for evil purposes. These are admittedly rare situations in general, but the concept remains the same. Government controls are more useful for restricting legitimate, rational men from firearms ownership, not criminals.

Edited April 17, 2007 by RationalBiker

[SkyTrooper]

Details on the Shooter:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ewsbreaking-hed

Cho left a long and vitriolic note in his dorm room, law enforcement sources told ABC News. It contained an explanation of his actions and states, "You caused me to do this," ABC News reported.

It also railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Cho spent much of that class sitting in the back of the room, wearing a hat and seldom participating. In a small department, Cho distinguished himself for being anonymous. "He didn't reach out to anyone. He never talked," Poole said.

"We just really knew him as the question mark kid," Poole said.

So, not much information yet.

[Mimpy]

Reading his profile, man does it reiterate the fact that everyone needs philosophy!!

[kufa]

The father of one of the girls shot at columbine visited my school. He showed a video of his son explaining how a friend of his was shot. The shooter told the kid to stand up, he pointed the gun at him(literally inches from his face) for a few seconds, made a few remarks and then shot the kid. The part that got me was that the kid did absoloutely nothing to defend himself. My dad taught me how to "dearm" a gunman not too long ago, its a simple matter of turning the gun away from yourself. I recognize that if in that situation, most people would probably shit their pants rather than think, but that simple technique, even without guns couldsave your life. I can't see myself just standing there, letting the gunman shoot me. I would run, hit him, spray him with the pepper spray I've got on my keychain, anything rather than just stand there.

[SkyTrooper]

Reading his profile, man does it reiterate the fact that everyone needs philosophy!!

This also brings up the virtue of Justice. Read these two plays and ask if the kid's teachers practiced "rationallity in the evaluation of men." What would you do if you were a teacher and these were turned in to you?

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

[Mimpy]

This also brings up the virtue of Justice. Read these two plays and ask if the kid's teachers practiced "rationallity in the evaluation of men." What would you do if you were a teacher and these were turned in to you?

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

I just read "Richard McBeef." The teacher should have told the school psychologist about this guy. Apart from the fact that he is irrational and overly dramatic, he is not even a decent writer. His style is that of a twelve year old's. With such a malevolent view of the world, how could you not expect someone to shoot his classmates for simply existing?

I will not be reading the other play.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Mimpy

[softwareNerd]

Myrhaf makes a good point about the VA tech shooting, basically making a case for conceptual clarity:

I have heard the Virginia Tech massacre described as a “tragedy.” It’s not a tragedy, it’s an atrocity.

[Moebius]

Now one of the problems "we" have in this thread is that when you refer to "we", you are in Taiwan (or at least that's where you appear to be coming from) and I'm in the United States. What you do for personal defense in Taiwan is of little interest to me, and I expect it to have little or no impact on what "we" do in the United States. Whatever laws exist in either country are are separate issue from what laws SHOULD exist based on the premise that we are discussing applications of Objectivism. However, if you must refer to existing law, it would be important for you to distinguish between whose law you are talking about, Taiwan or the US. For instance, in the US you CAN own a fully automatic machine gun, but you can't carry it around with you all the time. It is required that a person obtain a certain level of firearms licensing and pay a government tax, but one can legally own a machine gun in the US. However, because of the restrictive government controls on automatic weapons, my encounters with automatic weapons on the street are more typically in the hands of people who obtained them by illegal means and who had them for evil purposes. These are admittedly rare situations in general, but the concept remains the same. Government controls are more useful for restricting legitimate, rational men from firearms ownership, not criminals.

To be clear, I was born and lived a large part of my life in the United States, and as such I am aware of the restrictions on gun ownership. When I talk about "we", I am referring to Americans. From what I understand, the ownership of automatic weapons is dependent on the state or city that you live in.

I concede that a rational man should have a right to defend himself against force. Furthermore, I agree that a gun would be better than a tazer in most situations, although in the case of home-defense I think it doesn't make much of a difference (in fact a tazer would probably be safer to the user, his family, and his neighbors, given that not everybody is a trained marksman).

The bottom line is that I'm not against gun ownership in and of itself, but rather 1) the easy access that irrational and emotionally unstable people has to guns (but then I also believe that no man is rational and stable all the time) and, 2) the amount of collateral damage that can be done with a gun, as opposed to other non-lethal means of self-defense.

If we're talking about Taiwan, here gun ownership is restricted to trained professionals that are tested and authorized (cops/soldiers etc). It's true that some hardcore gang members do have access to black market guns, but it isn't common. It's true that hardened career criminals are going to be able to get guns no matter where they are, but rarely would I have to worry that an average petty theft or small time thug would pull a gun on me. Most severe assault cases here are generally done with edged or blunt weapons, and there is virtually no such thing as drive-by or school shootings. Given that most criminals don't have guns, generally milder means of self-defense like a tazer is more than sufficient. Now I can't honestly say whether banning guns in the US is better than not, but I definitely feel safer living in a society where the overall circulation of guns is much smaller.

[RationalBiker]

(but then I also believe that no man is rational and stable all the time)

I'm not going to take on the argument of whether or not this is a valid belief, it may well be. However, I will assert that I highly doubt that the vast majority of people who may experience irrationality do so to the extent that they would become homicidal. Being irrational encompasses a vastly wide scale. I come into contact with irrational people relatively frequently (some of whom are even criminals) who still would not cross the line into taking a person's life. That should not be taken as my advocacy that non-homicidal criminals should be allowed to carry as well as I'm not saying that.

but I definitely feel safer living in a society where the overall circulation of guns is much smaller.

If we put principles and rights aside, I think this may be one of the more mainstream approaches over which people argue. How much actual freedom is a person willing to surrender in order to feel safer? How much safer is "safe enough"?

[Inspector]

Now I can't honestly say whether banning guns in the US is better than not, but I definitely feel safer living in a society where the overall circulation of guns is much smaller.

Quite the opposite; I definitely feel safer living in a society where any freak like the Virginia Tech madman has to think twice before going on a rampage because any one in the room could be armed and prepared to resist him. When this incident was mentioned a few hours ago at work, two people simultaneously commented that "if he tried to pull that in Arizona, he'd be shot by four different people before he could even aim.

Of course, I pointed out that since it was on a university, you're not allowed to carry there, even if it were in Arizona. To which we all said what a bad idea that was.

[DavidV]

If we're talking about Taiwan, here gun ownership is restricted to trained professionals that are tested and authorized (cops/soldiers etc). It's true that some hardcore gang members do have access to black market guns, but it isn't common. ...I definitely feel safer living in a society where the overall circulation of guns is much smaller.

I'm glad that you feel safe, but Taiwan's murder rate is higher than the U.S.* -- although possession of a firearm in Taiwan is a capital offense. In any case, such inter-cultural comparison are strongly affected by cultural factors - such as Taiwan's homogeneous society and lesser influence of materialistic nihilism.

*Kates Article at 554 & n. 163, (citing Greenwood, supra note 13, at 7-44; Don B. Kates, Firearms and Violence: Old Premises and Current Evidence, in Violence in America 201 (Hugh D. Graham and Ted R. Gurr eds., 1989)

Edited April 18, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist
fix font

[DavidV]

However, I will assert that I highly doubt that the vast majority of people who may experience irrationality do so to the extent that they would become homicidal.

I think that what gun-control advocates ultimately fear is their inability to control their own actions. The leftist philosophy of environmental materialism reduces people to automatons blindly reacting to external forces - and rejects the possibility of living by according to moral principles. Additionally, the Marxist mentality of class conflict, and the constant internal conflict created by altruism establishes an inherently adversarial view of social interaction. Finally, I think that on some level leftists realize that the perpetrators of shooting sprees are the product of modern culture and share its nihilism and moral solipsism, while rejecting the veneer of utilitarian ethics. No wonder they're deathly afraid that anyone might go off at any time.

[Inspector]

I think that what gun-control advocates ultimately fear is their inability to control their own actions. The leftist philosophy of environmental materialism reduces people to automatons blindly reacting to external forces - and rejects the possibility of living by according to moral principles. Additionally, the Marxist mentality of class conflict, and the constant internal conflict created by altruism establishes an inherently adversarial view of social interaction. Finally, I think that on some level leftists realize that the perpetrators of shooting sprees are the product of modern culture and share its nihilism and moral solipsism, while rejecting the veneer of utilitarian ethics. No wonder they're deathly afraid that anyone might go off at any time.

+10000000!

That's been the sum of my observations on the subject, as well. The gun-control attitude is a psychological confession, more than anything else.

To believe one is incompetent to bear arms is, therefore, to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self - in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from the dignity of a free man would be rather hard to imagine. - Eric S. Raymond, Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun

To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic. - ’Ted Nugent’

[tps_fan]

+10000000!

That's been the sum of my observations on the subject, as well. The gun-control attitude is a psychological confession, more than anything else.

To believe one is incompetent to bear arms is, therefore, to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self - in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from the dignity of a free man would be rather hard to imagine. - Eric S. Raymond, Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun

To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic. - ’Ted Nugent’

I think that it's worth mentioning that the argument can be pushed further. Don't forget what Dr. Peikoff stated at the end of _O:PAR_: "At the end of Nihilism is Nihil."

These killer(s) were ultimately looking for an outlet for their frustrations to destroy values e.g. "rich kids", etc. If the very philosophers at Virginia Tech (and elsewhere) were doing their respective jobs, then they would have long since identified such killers for what they were. Considering that Modernist professors spend their time rationalizing on behalf of people who are willing to be so callous as to wipe out scores of people, is it any wonder that these incidents increase in frequency?

Who dares to be surprised?!

[gags]

This morning they interviewed the scumbag's English professor on one of the network talking-head shows. The host asked the professor whether she had considered contacting this guy's parents and alerting them regarding his violent writings and strange behavior. The professor said that "student confidentiality" rules prevented her from making contact with the parents. She also stated that a number of students regularly missed her classes because they were afraid to attend class with this killer.

Apparently the students and the professors at Va. Tech. were well aware of this fellow's statements about violence and so one has to wonder why he wasn't kicked out of the school. Were they afraid of lawsuits? It seems to me that this is just another deadly consequence of the inability to judge brought about by the prevailing philosophy in modern academia.

[DavidOdden]

Apparently the students and the professors at Va. Tech. were well aware of this fellow's statements about violence and so one has to wonder why he wasn't kicked out of the school. Were they afraid of lawsuits? It seems to me that this is just another deadly consequence of the inability to judge brought about by the prevailing philosophy in modern academia.

This is a consequence of the culture of entitlement and protection imposed on academe from the outside. Turning the guy in is a violation of federal law, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Violating that law is very serious, and you dare not give it any consideration. The university is not allowed to expell a student except for cause, which is well defined in terms of actions (forgery, tampering with fire equipment, rape, climbing, assault, stalking etc). They are not allowed to discipline a student for expression (unless it is racist, sexist or homophobic). It's not a question of our inability to judge, it is a consequence of us being prevented from judging. It is, really, the ultimate and ghastly consequence of the whole student-rights movement.

[D'kian]

Another thing is that the police most often play a retaliatory role. That is, they act after a crime has been commited. Not always, to be sure, but the odds of a cop being in a position to prevent a crime is slight. Cops can also arrive at the scene of a crime in progress, like a bank robbery or a hostage situation. But that, too, is retaliatory. In other words, the police mostly takes criminals off the streets and acts as a deterrent for potential criminals.

That isn't enough. One must also do his part protecting one's self. There are preventive measure, like keeping to safer areas, avoiding secluded spots, etc. But there are also active measures, like carrying a weapon. Not necessarily a gun, but I still think a gun is a better tool of self-defense than a taser, mace, or even other lethal weapons like knives.

[dan_edge]

Regarding the shooter's plays:

In a fiction-writing class in college, I read two student's submissions that were much more explicitly brutal and violent than either of the shooter's plays. I read short stories describing rape and murder in bloody detail. The authors who wrote these stories were nearly universally praised by the rest of the class, including the professor.

Movies like "Hostel" and "Wolf Creek" are very popular in movie theaters these days. As anyone who has seen any portion of these films will tell you, they are about as horribly violent as you can get. These types of movies often receive critical acclaim.

Honestly, if I read those two plays in a screen-writing class, I wouldn't think much of it. I would assume the kid was an immature, irrational nihilist with a penchant for expletives and gore. Sadly, this kind of student is not uncommon on college campuses. Nihilism, existentialism, and skeptical amoralism are treated as legitimate positions in philosophy classes.

This kid was a sick example of a sick culture.

--Dan Edge

[Mimpy]

Honestly, if I read those two plays in a screen-writing class, I wouldn't think much of it. I would assume the kid was an immature, irrational nihilist with a penchant for expletives and gore. Sadly, this kind of student is not uncommon on college campuses. Nihilism, existentialism, and skeptical amoralism are treated as legitimate positions in philosophy classes.

Apparently the teacher did express her concern to university officials and the police, but they were unable to do anything because it was just his writing.

[MisterSwig]

In Cho Seung-Hui's one-act play called "Mr. Brownstone" there are three main characters named John, Joe, and Jane. These three friends sit around in a casino and speak ill of their math teacher, Mr. Brownstone. John is the central figure with murderous thoughts concerning the teacher. He is believed to be a representation of Cho.

In real life, Cho's first victim was named Emily Jane Hilscher, with whom he apparently had an argument before he shot her. His roommate was named Joe Aust. And there was a math teacher who was killed named Liviu Librescu, but I don't know if he was ever Cho's teacher.

Coincidence?

Regarding Cho's mental problems, I suspect some type of religious indoctrination as the root cause. In his confession letter, Cho apparently lashed out against "rich kids," "debauchery," and "deceitful charlatans." This is the kind of rhetoric we hear from the Bible and Al Qaeda.

Luke 18:25 - "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Ezekiel 16:30 - "'How degenerate is your heart!' says the Lord GOD, 'seeing you do all these things, the deeds of a brazen harlot.'"

Ezekiel 16:35 - "Now then, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD: 'Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers . . . surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. And I will judge you as women who break wedlock or shed blood are judged; I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy.'"

Ayman Al-Zawahiri quote in CNN article: "In remarks directed . . . at Bush, al-Zawahiri warns, 'And be aware, you deceitful charlatan, that you are not facing individuals or organizations, but rather are facing the Muslim nation in which the spirit of jihad flows and which refuses humiliation under Zionist/crusader arrogance.'" [Emphasis added]

Osama bin Laden quoted in the Telegraph: "The West must 'stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you' and has become the 'worst civilisation witnessed in the history of mankind'."

Coincidence?

And now we have learned that Cho mailed MSNBC a well-prepared package moments before he went on his personal jihad. The package includes photos, videos, and a manifesto of some kind. It appears that he might have a problem with "hedonism" and "Christianity." Hrm.

[MisterSwig]

Quote from Cho Seung-Hui's confession package that he sent to NBC: "Thanks to you I died like Jesus Christ to inspire generations of the weak and defenseless people." Hrm. It sure will be interesting to watch how this one is spun in the media.

Also, on the NBC package, it looks like Cho wrote "A. Ishmael" in the return address portion.

Edited April 19, 2007 by MisterSwig

[Scott_Connery]

Did anyone see this little article from last year?

"On Tuesday, January 31, 2006 Roanoke Times (http://tinyurl.com/3a3zzo) reported that HB (House Bill) 1572 died in subcommittee. The bill would have given college students the right to carry handguns on campus. VIRGINA TECH spokesman Larry Hincker was HAPPY to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.", said Mr. Hincker OF VIRGINA TECH.

"

How sad. I'm sure all of those students who were deprived of the means to protect themselves felt safe while they were being gunned down by a madman who astonishingly didn't care about little things like laws.

[Inspector]

Did anyone see this little article from last year?

"On Tuesday, January 31, 2006 Roanoke Times (http://tinyurl.com/3a3zzo) reported that HB (House Bill) 1572 died in subcommittee. The bill would have given college students the right to carry handguns on campus. VIRGINA TECH spokesman Larry Hincker was HAPPY to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.", said Mr. Hincker OF VIRGINA TECH.

"

How sad. I'm sure all of those students who were deprived of the means to protect themselves felt safe while they were being gunned down by a madman who astonishingly didn't care about little things like laws.

Yes, I saw that right before I went to sleep this morning. That needs to be spread around as much as possible. I want that Hincker man to be haunted by those words. I want everyone to see exactly what happens when you render people defenseless and how "safe" that makes us.

[The Wrath]

Neal Boortz has been talking about that quite a bit.

As a sidenote, has anyone seen the facebook groups defending this little shit? One of them is titled "Cho Seung Hui is the real victim." Unbelievable.

[Mimpy]

As a sidenote, has anyone seen the facebook groups defending this little shit? One of them is titled "Cho Seung Hui is the real victim." Unbelievable.

That group only has 19 members. There are plenty more groups who are plainly describing their disgust for Hui. In comparison, the "A tribute to those who passed at the Virginia Tech Shooting" group has 268, 173 members.