Massacre at Virginia Tech

[Sniper_Zegai]

Hi you two. You know I usually weigh on our arguements but you were covering most of the angles.

I have to agree with Amyral.

Legally this guy was more or less untouchable. Stalking is one of the hardest crimes to get prosecuted and alot of the apparent "signs" that were supposed to tell us that he was dangerous would'nt have been that apparent at the time.

I said in an earlier post that people will be looking for someone to blame and even something nameless and faceless like "the system" people will still be looking to point a finger and get some closure.

And I have to agree 100% with Amyral when it comes to breaching privacy. I beleive if there is good enough reason and evidence then you should be able to act and retreive evidence. But if we create laws where all we have to say is "He might be another Cho" or "Its a matter of national security" to just go through peoples stuff and tap their phones then there will be more victims than criminals being victimised.

What happened here was a tradegy and I hope some real and constructive changes come from this but the truth is this would have been almost impossible to predict, on this scale at least. And I hope nobody including those in power do anything rash out of emotion regarding this.

I guess all the answers to the questions people 'really' want answering died along with Cho. I dont know if that was another blow Cho was looking to strike to the people, but you never know.
_________________

[Luceit]

Well, I also understood that. I know that a lot of these laws sound good in theory but when it comes to practical constraints, it just couldn't be done. I was just taking that from AOL to see if someone could disprove of it better than me.

For example, consider these off: (Taken from AOL)

1) His plays were clearly a warning sign: No. A lot of plays, stories and movies have far worse content. About all you could really say about Cho's plays was that it seemed to lack maturity, but creative writing teachers say they're a dime a dozen in classes.
2) People should have helped him: I'll concede that society nowadays is rather nasty, cold even. Even so, unless he was directly bullied, we can all agree that it was his choice to act like an idiot, instead of looking for help. Heck, I don't think his case is even as bad as other people I've heard of.
3) Immigration laws should be tightened: Yeah right. Even if you tightened immigration laws, it doesn't help much, because anyone can be a murderer.
4) This is what happens when you take God out of the classroom: Considering that Cho was most likely not a Christian, I don't see why is this even elaborated.
5) More counselling should have been done: Cho didn't want it, Cho won't change. End of.

However, one interesting thing that I did read was the structure of the classroom. From an analysis of the building, there was only one door, and the windows were small, which made escape hard. This gave an advantage to the gunner. In light of this, do you think that future schools should be built with such events in mind?
_________________

[Yvl]

[Amyral]

Yeah, I agree with that, when you have so few exits, it makes it difficult for people to get out for any reason. Of course, it's not practical to have multiple exits for every classroom, but there should be more exits out of buildings for fire safety and other reasons.

[Sniper_Zegai]

I actually thought this was a really big biulding with loads of doors, but all he had to do was to bolt a single door to keep everyone from escaping.

I agree with everything about what Luceit said. Especially those immagration and god issues. You seriously think having an extra R.E. lesson would have made Cho more sane. And as said anyone can be a murderer. In fact Cho was probably shunned for being an immagrant. I think its safer to say if Americans were more accepting of immigrants, Cho would have felt more comfortable asking for help. Who knows.
_________________

[Yvl]

[Sniper_Zegai]

I dont really but it as how America is portryaed through the media.

There always seems to be someone complaining about something in America and Immagration is just one of the things that get alot of attention media wise. And I guess its the American attitude that gives them a mild racist appearance. The simple fact that Americans (and Im not saying all of them of course) seems to think they are superior somehow just for being American, they use terms like "God Bless America", "Greatest country in the world" and my personal favourite "All american person/family/etc, etc" gives the impression that the rest of the world is inferior somehow or if I stepped foot in America I would'nt be welcome becuase Im not American. But as I said Im not saying this is all Americans or even most Americans, Its just what I see most media wise.
_________________

[Yvl]

That's not true at all, and it's also definately off topic. Another thread is needed for this.
_________________

[Gil-galad]

[Sniper_Zegai]

Im sorry guys I know there is a topic for this already. I was just responding. I will admit however that I dont have much knowledge on American culture, I just tell it how I see it.

Im sure Americans think British people are cowardly tea drinking posh weirdos who all sound like Hugh Grant. Its just a stereotype but it does'nt stop the media from presenting us that way to America, as said Im sure most Americans are'nt like this thats just the impression that is given.
_________________

[Buff]

[Acheron]

I heard some stupid underclassmen today talking about the Tragedy at Virginia Tech. He said "if teachers were equipped with guns in the classroom, there would only be one life lost that day", loosely quoted. I'm curious what everyone thinks about this. It seems like a trend almost, what with better equipped air marshalls in light of airborne terrorism.

My opinion is exactley opposite what he thinks. I think that equipping more people with guns is in no way a solution to the US gun violence problem. From the wording of my previous sentence you can see the logic behind my statement. Adding more guns will not prevent people from using them. If anything, a person willing to use a gun on another human being may feel it imperitive to shoot first if they feel threatened by the chance their victim has a gun.

So I've discredited a solution, I'll provide what I think is the best alternative. If we were to document the fact that a person had been sent to counseling due to imbalance issues before, I feel it would have nipped this in the bud. The background check performed by the salesmen wasn't extensive enough to show that the customer had an above average chance of misusing the firearm, due to past reckless behavior. I feel any kind of reckless decision making that has been evaluated by a legally responsible corporation should be red flagged on an application for firearms.

This would include those reckless teenage days. Furthermore, what did a college age kid need with a gun? Why didn't anyone ask how he got this weapon? It's my opinion that age limitations should be more strict with those who can legally weild a fire arm and those who can purchase a fire arm, far more strict than the age limits on drinking and smoking. Without extensive research and evaluation, I'd say anyone under 30 has no need to be buying a gun. Weilding one is a different matter, but buying implies something else.

Rather than point fingers at who is at fault and in what ways was the problem prevented poorly, like the media seems to be highlighting, I'd rather think about what could be done differently to prevent this in the future.

-----

My Mum and Dad are both alumni so I've been fairly well informed about the events surrounding the massacre. My Mum expressed discontent when she witnessed a ceremony this morning. They had a bell and 32 people standing with a white balloon each. With each strike of the bell they let one more go, at dawn I think. Mum feels like they should have down 33, including Seung, because he was a victim of himself and his mental instabilities. What do you think? Should the killer be acknowledged with the others since he too died that day, falling prey to a disturbed murderer?

[Sniper_Zegai]

I can understand the motivation behind air marshalls because they are trained proffesionals. But arming teachers is riduculous.

Instead is saying "Hold on, we should really look at how this guy legally acqiured a weapon" they are actually saying "A load more guns will put out that fire" Its insane. Arming people left, right and centre is'nt going to solve this problem. Disarming people and tightening the hold on fire-arm laws to prevent people like Cho slipping through the net is the real solution.
_________________

[Buff]

[Luceit]