Virginia Tech Massacre

[Lord J Esq]

Why did no one commit these kind of school rampages 100 years ago?  Society has changed.  We've changed.

No...we haven't. Society is really not so different than it ever was. Human nature remains the same. People did commit serious crimes one hundred, or one thousand years ago. Indeed, life now is better than it was then--not the other way around. Most societies and perhaps all of them--including our own--were bloodier, and less just than what Americans enjoy today. What has changed is that more people are more emancipated, more wealthy, more educated, and more powerful than ever before. That's good news, not bad.

One definite cause of violent crime is passion or sudden emotion, which is usually much more present in men than women. It's a problem with our society...we discourage the idea of men sharing their emotions and feelings, and by doing so we create a huge problem where so many men in an attempt to be "macho" will bottle up their feelings and then unleash them. That's why men tend to be much more violent. It's stupid and ridiculous, really, and ought to be changed if we want to reduce violent crime.

Unless the news reports are plain wrong, this was not a crime of passion...so what you have written is only tangentially relevant at best. It is also derogatory toward men. I have known plenty of men and plenty of women, and in all honesty aggression is the product of two simple, gender-neutral factors: A feeling of power relative to others, and a lack of character integrity. Women on average are less aggressive than men because they are given fewer opportunities by our misogynistic society to feel dominant. This isn't to say that males aren't inherently aggressive, but rather that they aren't all that much more aggressive inherently than females.

All anecdotal, of course, so take it with a grain of salt...but nonetheless, as some of the Compendium's vets could attest, I devote a fair bit of time and energy to the study of sexism. I pay a lot of attention to human behavior in this context.

Guns don't kill people...people kill people...

But to quote Eddy Izzard, the guns help.

@saridon: American's are obsessed with the first two amendments, bringing them up in basically every discussion even minutely related.

The First Amendment is the single most important of all the amendments. That is why it comes up so frequently. It is the core of our civil liberty, protecting multiple essential freedoms from speech to religion to the press.

The Second Amendment comes up in debate so often because right-wingers have made it a pet cause of theirs. It is, nonetheless, the least relevant of all 27 amendments other than the now-repealed prohibition of alcohol.

Some new thoughts after today's developments:

Xenophobia
I was very dismayed to hear today that the killer was a Korean national with U.S. residency. Anti-immigration sentiment--which is really just a euphemism for xenophobia--is already much more inflamed in this country than most people realize, and this is exactly what we didn't need. I for one am very glad that gun control has thus far dominated the news cycle, because we have here the makings for an anti-immigrant movement the likes of which would be a major United States mark of shame for the remainder of our existence as a nation. Thank goodness, at least, that the killer was a permanent resident alien and a citizen of a country with which we are strongly allied.

Liberal versus Conservative
The liberal talking heads have been emphasizing gun control pretty much down the line. Nothing very creative from them, although one Seattle liberal radio talk show host pointed out that it would have taken a very, very strict set of gun laws to have thwarted this particular shooting, because of the particulars. However, the Mayor noted what I said yesterday: Gun control might not be able to prevent a particular shooting from occurring, but over time it will save lives statistically. A ban (partial or total) would have some net positive effect.

The conservatives have been emphasizing the immigration angle, and, apparently as a defense to the attacks on gun rights now underway, they have also been spinning the murder as overhyped. One right-wing radio talk show host in Seattle said today that people are driving this event way out of proportion, because more people die every day in this country from things like car wrecks than they do from shootings. So, he reasoned, what is all the fuss? (He's actually got a point, except for two things. One, a more calm public reaction will do nothing to prevent these shootings from happening. Two, the "fuss" is that premeditated murder is a more culturally harmful event than a car wreck.) A few minutes later the radio host started saying that illegal immigrants come into the country, infest our cities with crime, shoot police officers, and who knows what else--because at that point I turned off the radio. He's a bullshitting bastard, and it is scary that so many people feel the same way as him right now.

Dehumanizing Diversions
It came out today that the killer left a letter raging against women, rich kids, campus debauchery, and perhaps some other things. I suggest to you all that these elements of the story are a diversion. They are meant to dehumanize the criminal and make it easier for us to think less critically about why this shooting occurred and how it can be prevented. In other words, the hype surrounding these details is our pop culture's own numbskulled attempt to cope with the tragedy in its own numbskulled way. Don't fall for it. We should assume that the killer was a human being just like the rest of us, and that whatever grievances drove him to this crime were at least somewhat based in society. I am not saying that we should absolve him of his legal responsibility for these crimes, but I am saying that a wiser society will look first at itself when one of its people goes bad, and only second will it look at the person who committed the crime.

The Second Amendment
Scrap it. If people want to have guns, let them damn submit to some regulation. I don't necessarily support a total gun ban, but neither do I support a Constitutional Amendment worded so broadly that right-wingers (and libertarians) falsely construe it to mean that private citizens should check their own government with the threat of violence. That is absurd in today's world.

Illegal Guns
To those who keep arguing that outlawing guns will give criminals absolute power over the rest of us, stop being deliberately dense. For one thing, the authorities would still be armed, and they are ones best equipped to deal with all of this. For another thing, the implicit argument behind arming private citizens is that they will be able to defend themselves and others against armed criminals. Gun battles between private citizens is a very bad solution! Most people would be overwhelmed by adrenaline and would make bad decisions in the heat of a gun battle. I know many of you around here feel bold, smart, and able to function well under pressure. I also know that many of you are none of those things. So it is with the rest of society. If more people brought guns to a shootout, unintentional shootings would soar. Think of the chaos! At the time of the shooting, you have no information about what is going on...yet you expect to make sound decisions about who to shoot? Bullshit. Life is seldom that easy.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Doesn't the Second Amendment basically support vigilantism?

[Paleontole]

Liberal versus Conservative
The liberal talking heads have been emphasizing gun control pretty much down the line. Nothing very creative from them, although one Seattle liberal radio talk show host pointed out that it would have taken a very, very strict set of gun laws to have thwarted this particular shooting, because of the particulars.

Yes it would have. It's unfortunate also hearing all the warning signs that have also come out today about this student, some people tried to do something about it, but apparently it wasn't enough.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.

[Lord J Esq]

Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.

And, statistically, you're more likely to use those home-protection guns to shoot a friend or family member than a burglar.

[Burning Zeppelin]

A burglar would use his gun to scare you off if you approach him, rather than to shoot you (unless you jump up behind him and shout out 'boo!'). However, if you threaten him with a gun, blood will be spilt.

[Joe000]

No...we haven't. Society is really not so different than it ever was. Human nature remains the same. People did commit serious crimes one hundred, or one thousand years ago. Indeed, life now is better than it was then--not the other way around. Most societies and perhaps all of them--including our own--were bloodier, and less just than what Americans enjoy today. What has changed is that more people are more emancipated, more wealthy, more educated, and more powerful than ever before. That's good news, not bad.

I am talking about the question of why young people are going on murderous rampages in schools.  This is a new problem.  It's not the end of the world, but it is something that needs to be understood.  And would you like to explain to me how society doesn't change?  Because we are all living like Puritans fresh off the Mayflower, aren't we?

Xenophobia
I was very dismayed to hear today that the killer was a Korean national with U.S. residency. Anti-immigration sentiment--which is really just a euphemism for xenophobia--is already much more inflamed in this country than most people realize, and this is exactly what we didn't need. I for one am very glad that gun control has thus far dominated the news cycle, because we have here the makings for an anti-immigrant movement the likes of which would be a major United States mark of shame for the remainder of our existence as a nation. Thank goodness, at least, that the killer was a permanent resident alien and a citizen of a country with which we are strongly allied.

Any evidence to support this claim of xenophobia (oh Jesus, are we lynching immigrants yet?!?!?!?), or is this the same multiculturalist crap that any argument against mass legal and illegal immigration is a sign you are a racist, xenophobe, and must never be given any avenues at all to let one's voice be heard?  Name calling isn't an argument, buddy.  Although it is fun.  You stupid asshole.  As for him being Korean, so what?  Asians from places like China, Korea, and Japan are so statistically underrepresented in violent crime compared to other races in America that this isn't even an issue, and I can't see why you would even bring it up.  When mass anti-Korean protests start popping up, then get back to me.

[Lord J Esq]

I am talking about the question of why young people are going on murderous rampages in schools.  This is a new problem.

Prove to me that it is a "new" problem. Given the xenophobic nature of your post, I'm not interested in listening to your opinions. Give me facts, or don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Ramsus]

Making guns illegal will not stop criminals from having guns. Criminals such as burglars. A home invasion is a situation in which a private citizen (the resident) owning a firearm can be of great benefit. If the burglar isn't armed, a hasty retreat is no doubt his response, thus minimizing the time spent burglarizing. If they are both armed, well, that's a bit trickier. Hopefully you manage to spot the burglar before he knows you're awake and armed. In such a scenario it doesn't matter if the police still have their guns because they won't be able to get there in time to help you.

And, statistically, you're more likely to use those home-protection guns to shoot a friend or family member than a burglar.

Statistically, most people can't aim for shit either, especially under pressure.

Personally, I don't like the idea of carrying a gun with me everywhere, save a combat zone or somewhere with a lot of lawless violence. Of course, I'd rather carry a gun than practice grappling, throwing, and knife techniques, but that's because I'm already a pretty good shot.

When it comes right down to it, I don't think guns should be illegal to own, but allowing any random jackass with a trigger finger to own and carry a gun kind of bothers me. Honestly, I'm more afraid of some nervous fuck who can't aim carrying a handgun than a professional criminal. People should be able to safely handle and proficiently use a gun before being allowed to carry one.

Besides, getting rid of guns in a country where there's more guns than people is like thinking we can get rid of hammers or cars. Your best bet is to invent some sort of security device that makes people feel safer than if they carried or owned a gun, but doesn't kill or maim. Then only hunters, hobbyists, and criminals will own guns, but every person with this new invention will have the ability to easily take down an armed assailant.

It'd be more effective than any gun control law.

[saridon]

Apparently said shooter, who was an English major, wrote stories about murder and pedophilia.

so he most likely was a /b/tard, anonymous strikes again.

[Kyronea]

Unless the news reports are plain wrong, this was not a crime of passion...so what you have written is only tangentially relevant at best. It is also derogatory toward men. I have known plenty of men and plenty of women, and in all honesty aggression is the product of two simple, gender-neutral factors: A feeling of power relative to others, and a lack of character integrity. Women on average are less aggressive than men because they are given fewer opportunities by our misogynistic society to feel dominant. This isn't to say that males aren't inherently aggressive, but rather that they aren't all that much more aggressive inherently than females.

All anecdotal, of course, so take it with a grain of salt...but nonetheless, as some of the Compendium's vets could attest, I devote a fair bit of time and energy to the study of sexism. I pay a lot of attention to human behavior in this context.

True, true, but you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the same misogynistic society you speak of. All things neutral men would not be any more agressive than women, but in our society that tends to look down on men who share their feelings and otherwise use healthy methods to relieve their anger, men will be more violent because it bottles up. Again, I stress the societal factors. Given that I myself am a male, I'm speaking from experience here, when it comes to bottling up feelings. Bottled up feelings affect a lot more than people realize.

But to quote Eddy Izzard, the guns help.

They certainly do at that...that's why we need to stress gun safety and proper gun usage for all gun owners. I know I plan on taking such courses when I purchase a firearm.

Xenophobia
I was very dismayed to hear today that the killer was a Korean national with U.S. residency. Anti-immigration sentiment--which is really just a euphemism for xenophobia--is already much more inflamed in this country than most people realize, and this is exactly what we didn't need. I for one am very glad that gun control has thus far dominated the news cycle, because we have here the makings for an anti-immigrant movement the likes of which would be a major United States mark of shame for the remainder of our existence as a nation. Thank goodness, at least, that the killer was a permanent resident alien and a citizen of a country with which we are strongly allied.

I agree completely. Thing is, sooner or later some racist xenophobic jackass--say, Tom Tancredo--is going to use this as an excuse to try to crack down on legal immigration yet again.

Illegal Guns
To those who keep arguing that outlawing guns will give criminals absolute power over the rest of us, stop being deliberately dense. For one thing, the authorities would still be armed, and they are ones best equipped to deal with all of this. For another thing, the implicit argument behind arming private citizens is that they will be able to defend themselves and others against armed criminals. Gun battles between private citizens is a very bad solution! Most people would be overwhelmed by adrenaline and would make bad decisions in the heat of a gun battle. I know many of you around here feel bold, smart, and able to function well under pressure. I also know that many of you are none of those things. So it is with the rest of society. If more people brought guns to a shootout, unintentional shootings would soar. Think of the chaos! At the time of the shooting, you have no information about what is going on...yet you expect to make sound decisions about who to shoot? Bullshit. Life is seldom that easy

And you seem to be under the mistaken impression that those of us who share my opinions on this picture the country as some kind of horrible gang violence paradise. I'm not disagreeing with you here, Lord J...we definitely need to reduce violent crime. But the guns themselves are not the cause. Do they occasionally make it easier? Yes. Does that mean we ought to ban all guns? Absolutely not. What happens if we did ban all the guns? How would we defend ourselves easily against violent criminals? Say a 220 lb rapist was attacking a 110 lb woman. Without the gun, she would not be unlikely to successfully defend herself, unless of course she took the same kind of self-defense classes my sisters did(and really, more people ought to take those kinds of classes) but that is a rare thing at best. Remember, that same easy use helps a person defend themselves much more easily.

As for only the authorities having the guns...that's part of the problem. I distrust the government a lot more than I used to thanks to Bush and people like him in power...those authorities might not always be your friend, you know. And, of course, let's not forget those self-same authorities are also human and often make mistakes and otherwise use their weapons for the same purposes...think of all the bad cops we've heard about recently. Being an authority does not a good person make.

That said, I do still want to see reduction in gun ownership, at least till we can focus on and eliminate the true causes of violent crime.

Besides, getting rid of guns in a country where there's more guns than people is like thinking we can get rid of hammers or cars. Your best bet is to invent some sort of security device that makes people feel safer than if they carried or owned a gun, but doesn't kill or maim. Then only hunters, hobbyists, and criminals will own guns, but every person with this new invention will have the ability to easily take down an armed assailant.

It'd be more effective than any gun control law.

Exactly. One of my many problems with my own argument is that people would need a lethal weapon to defend themselves when there ought to be another way. I am a realistic pacifist...if there is a peaceful solution, I take it. If violence is my only option, I use the absolute least amount necessary to resolve the situation. As such, we need something better to defend ourselves with.

But what? What do we use? To be honest, I have no idea. I really don't.

[Burning Zeppelin]

I would certainly feel safer known the person who wants to shoot me has taken courses in how to use guns.

[Kyronea]

I would certainly feel safer known the person who wants to shoot me has taken courses in how to use guns.

The idea behind it is so that there are few--if any--accidents--hence the gun safety--and if you actually need to use the gun to defend yourself, you know how to use it effectively. That is actually far safer than an untrained gun owner who doesn't know what they are doing with their gun.

Besides, we're talking about law-abiding citizens here. Owning a gun does not turn one into a crazed killing machine anymore than my owning a bo staff turns me into a killing machine...with a bo staff.

[Burning Zeppelin]

I would certainly feel safer known the person who wants to shoot me has taken courses in how to use guns.

The idea behind it is so that there are few--if any--accidents--hence the gun safety--and if you actually need to use the gun to defend yourself, you know how to use it effectively. That is actually far safer than an untrained gun owner who doesn't know what they are doing with their gun.

Besides, we're talking about law-abiding citizens here. Owning a gun does not turn one into a crazed killing machine anymore than my owning a bo staff turns me into a killing machine...with a bo staff.

You own a bo staff!? Get away from me you blood-crazed lunatic!

And don't worry, I'm not - nor do I see any reason to be - against gun training. I was just commenting on how gun training courses which probably would increase a murderers ability to kill, were forced upon them. Not that I see anything wrong with it, of course.

[Kyronea]

There's definitely that risk, to be sure. We should be able to avoid that by requiring proof of legal purchase in order to take the gun training courses. There's still the other gun courses out there that could be taken by those with intent to murder, but those courses will exist whether we set up these required courses or not, so that is irrelevant. I'd rather train the law-abiding citizens and run the risk of accidentely training a murderer than leaving the citizens to figure it all out for themselves and cause the kind of accidents that result in kids killing themselves with a loaded gun left lying around.