Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 18, 2007 in At TMV | 13 comments

V. Tech – Round-up

Jules Crittenden, who is rapidly evolving into one of the best round-up’ers in the blogosphere, has another great round-up up, linking to articles and blogposts about the shooting at Virginia Tech, gun restriction laws, etc.

Jules own thoughts, I tend to agree with his view: “A quick take on all of the above: I don’t have one… More gun control may prevent or limit some cases of murder or mass murder, but it won’t stop either. Less gun control may prevent or limit some cases of murder or mass murder, but it also won’t stop either.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2007 The Moderate Voice
  • Uncle Joe Mccarthy

    according to reports i have read, the shooter was hospitilized at least on one occasion, following complaints of stalking

    someone wanna explain how someone with a record of mental illness purchases a gun legally?

    how campus officials did very little to help a student who showed signs of severe mentall illness for at least a year before the shooting?

    this case has less to do with gun laws and more to do with how we deal with mental illness in this country

  • MichaelF

    That’s quite a general comment Joe. How should we deal with people we consider to be mentally ill? At what point can we force a person to be treated? The next question involves who is responsible for making that determination.

  • kritter

    But many times people with mental illness slip between the cracks. The homeless population has a large segment of mentally ill. It is difficult to track people with these types of illnesses unless it is serious enough for them to be institutionalized. Cho may have been able to function, but have been off of his medication.

    I do see the larger issue as laxity of gun laws- I don’t understand why anyone needs a semiautomatic that can shoot multiple rounds without reloading or why a background check isn’t required to prove mental fitness.

  • marlajane

    when i first saw it on tv..i thought maybe he was harassed by fellow students. now that more has come out about him, he has been struggling with the need to get attention from someone , anyone. his cries for help started with the writings, then stalking, some families don’t know how to love, how to show love. i grew up in one of those families, tho i never thought to hurt anyone, i did think of suicide many times. this guy was so confused, he wanted love , wanted attention, he just didn’t know how to go about it. yea he went the wrong way trying to get it, but that’s all he knew, grabbing at straws. in his head he figured if you didn’t show me attention or love , no one would see it from you ever again. so he shot them all, he couldn’t deal with the va tech family, he didn’t have that closeness in his own family. his stories..well he wasn’t sexually abused, he was neglected, and that kindof abuse is just about as bad as getting hurt. we can question all we want, but it’s history now, we have to move on, learn from this, know the signs and act on them if they ever come up again. about the guns, if someone has a green card or any card like that it means they weren’t born and raised here which should sound an alarm, no we shouldn’t sell guns to people with green cards or anyother card for that matter. there should be a two month waiting period with gun safety classes and thorough background checks, hospital, school, police, for everyone.

  • kritter

    This is a little o/t but I have to express my opposition to conservatives who are suggesting that the solution is not fewer guns but more guns. Do they seriously think that will cut down on the numbers of violent incidents on campus? What of the depressed student who thinks they are flunking out, but who packed a handgun and ammo for cases like this one? What about a student who’s furious with the University’s administration for being expelled? Lover’s quarrels in the dorms? Horrendous incident leads to horrendous idea for solution from 2cnd amendment gunhappy wingnuts.

  • jammer

    There are several things that require cool rational examination when the emotional grieving is done.

    1. Why were the English professor’s efforts to get police, mental health dept, faculty and staff involved so fruitless. I cant tell you how many articles I have now read where campus police chiefs say the best security is to keep a watch out and report suspicious people. Here was someone pegged by his prof as a potential killer, and her repeated efforts to get someone to act were all fruitless. We need better response systems.

    2. Why was a man accused of stalking and in mental health care in 2005 for violence/suicide allowed to buy a gun? we need better systems to weed out people like this from the instantaneous purchase of guns. Dont get me wrong, I own guns and strongly support the right to bear arm, but a stalker under mental health care should not be able to get a gun. Period. Anyone arguing for his right to buy a gun is truly misplaced in their thinking.

    3. Why was the campus not evacuated with two people dead and the shooter on the loose? I have sympathy for police dealing with a chaotic situation but we surely can do better than was done on this fateful day.

    Like Gov. Kane, I loathe those who are trying to score political points on any side of the gun divide on this case. However, we need a cold hard look at the foregoing issues and hopefully Kane’s commission will look at all of them.

  • Why were the English professor’s efforts to get police, mental health dept, faculty and staff involved so fruitless.

    Because the state needs probable cause to act. It’s not enough that someone might be a danger to him- or herself or others, they must act or be definitely in the process of acting. Nothing the English professor came up with suggested either of those things.

  • kritter

    Dave Shuler is spot on. Even Cho’s parents couldn’t do anything unless he actually committed a violent act. Just exhibiting the warning signs is not enough. The same is true in domestic abuse cases.

  • m

    The bible-bangers have a victory. They are so excitedto start restricting what others cn do, to make sure we ALL have to follow their beliefe system.

    As for MVG bizarre statements above, what can you say? Obviously someone who has little understanding the constitution is a living document that is altered and rethought constantly. New ‘rights’ will be created and undersatood as time goes on. There is constant need to adjust how you view the writings in a 200 year old document, or it becomes ‘the word of god’. And we all know how well that works.

    Not a good day legally or for therights of individuals who do not believe in the jesus myths but instead want a logical and sensible government that is geared toward serving its people and not creating sanctity police. Illegal medical procedures, not believing in the foundation of evolutionary biology…I wonder is that very vocal portion of the United States wouldn’t be better served in the Dark Ages?

  • As for MVG bizarre statements above, what can you say? Obviously someone who has little understanding the constitution is a living document that is altered and rethought constantly. New ‘rights’ will be created and undersatood as time goes on. There is constant need to adjust how you view the writings in a 200 year old document, or it becomes ‘the word of god’.

    No, you change what the Law actually says, not by interpreting it in a way that suits your own wishes instead of what was actually written and meant with it back in the day.

    The Constitution will never become a ‘Bible’, because it can still, always be altered, changed. The Bible – want to change teaching? Change interpretation, the Bible is, as a document, ‘finished’, never changing. The Constitution, however, can be changed.

    In other words, your comparison is not valid.

    This is the problem with people who cannot distinguish different issues / subjects.

  • domajot

    MFDG said:
    “you change what the Law actually says, not by interpreting it in a way that suits your own wishes”
    ——————
    Exactly.
    But what does the law actually say?
    That’s the problem, Michael.
    Two camps are reading the same law and getting two different messages.

    You seem to argue from the position of your knowing the true meanting, and it’s up to those who oppose you to change the law.
    The the other camp throws it right back at you in reverse.

    The only clarity is in the conviction by individuals that they have it right.
    We’re back to having two different clarities. Your side doesn’t get primacy by simple declaration, nor does the other side.

    This is just going around in circles. Meanwhile, the carnage continues.

  • MichaelF

    Kritter said :

    I do see the larger issue as laxity of gun laws- I don’t understand why anyone needs a semiautomatic that can shoot multiple rounds without reloading or why a background check isn’t required to prove mental fitness

    Who said it was about what a person NEEDS ? I don’t need a tv but I have several . I don’t need multiple houses but I want them . This is a free country . What people need is not and should not be the issue regardless of the subject .

  • domajot

    MichaelF.
    I hope you are just nitpicking about semantiics, because otherwise, your comment makes no sense.

    One may want the liberty to have all sorts of things, including a stash of bombs in the basement.
    We are dicussing which wants one may reasonably expect to have fulfilled.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com