Post #282,221
4/17/07 8:18:35 PM
|
We don't need more guns - we need more shrinks
We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard.
H.L. Mencken, 1914
|
Post #282,238
4/17/07 10:11:32 PM
4/17/07 10:13:36 PM
|
Ive met shrinks, we need guns (edit dammit button)
unless we have shrinks asigned to jump in front of deranged shooters, car bombers, suicide belts and rosie odonell we need more guns.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Edited by boxley
April 17, 2007, 10:13:36 PM EDT
|
Post #282,243
4/17/07 10:23:08 PM
|
On campus?
Dude, they kill themselves and each other with *booze* on college campuses. You think these kids can handle guns when they can't handle their drink.?
I don't fucking think so.
No guns on campus.
I had a GF at college who was a state champion marksman. She still had to go down to campus security to service her weapons and/or take them off to a range. She was not allowed to possess them full time. Makes sense.
We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard.
H.L. Mencken, 1914
|
Post #282,259
4/18/07 7:38:24 AM
|
for every 5 students there is a janitor, groundskeeper drug
dealer etc. If someone who was armed as this little shitheel didnt seem to notice the "no guns allowed" signs, the death toll might have been smaller. As it is you have a 76YO holding him off with a door. You dont bring a door to a gun fight.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #282,245
4/17/07 10:32:32 PM
|
We've seen what happens when many people have guns.
[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Bailo_Diallo|Amadou Diallo]. When 4 well trained men armed with handguns can panic and shoot 41 rounds at an unarmed person, what do you think hundreds of untrained teenagers in a lecture hall would do once gunshots rang out?
More guns in public isn't the solution, IMO.
I honestly don't think there is a solution. There is some tiny fraction of the population that is going to - for whatever reason - kill people, sometimes in horrific ways. As long as the population increases, there will be more of these events. Short of locking up all males between about 8 and 45, I don't think there's much that can be done about it.
Confiscating guns isn't the solution, because all [link|http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt|44 M Americans with guns won't give up their 190+ M weapons]. And they can be easily smuggled in from elsewhere. Gun detectors aren't the solution either, because they can be bypassed, as we saw [link|http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_090201119.html|recently].
I don't think that shrinks have most of the answers either.
It's really the tyranny of improbable events happening in a large-enough population, IMHO. Changing the laws most likely isn't going to have any beneficial effect.
But we'll see what the investigation turns up...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #282,246
4/17/07 10:37:52 PM
|
There were warning signs
He apparently wrote a play about a step father killing his step son (or the reverse) that his writing teacher flagged as a warning sign. The higher-ups dismissed it as nothing.
I he had been sent to mandatory counseling/psych eval when the first warning signs surfaced, we might not be having this conversation.
We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard.
H.L. Mencken, 1914
|
Post #282,247
4/17/07 10:53:24 PM
|
Signs, yes. But hindsight's 20:20.
Yes, one of his [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041700563_pf.html|teachers] tried to sound an alarm about his writing. Lucinda Roy, an English professor who taught a creative writing class that Cho attended, was so concerned about Cho that she had warned university police and officials about him, and volunteered to teach him by herself, to spare colleagues.
Roy, now the Alumni Distinguished Professor of English and co-director of the creative program, said university officials were responsive and sympathetic but indicated that because Cho had made no direct threats there was little they could do.
"I don't want to be accusatory, or blaming other people," Roy said. "I do just want to say, though, it's such a shame if people don't listen very carefully, and if the law constricts them so that they can't do what is best for the student." It's not mathematics - we can't yet prove that someone in particular will act a certain way. People in authority have to make judgments about inherently fuzzy evidence and try to comply with laws that can't cover every circumstance. There are still too many fuzzy things about psychology for me to trust an arbitrary PhD to single out someone for treatment (or confinement) before there was any demonstrated threatening actions. I suspect we'll hear more about this aspect of him in the coming months. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #282,250
4/18/07 12:20:27 AM
|
I normally don't agree with guns....
but this might be an exception to the rule.
Preliminary stories suggest that he kills his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend and then decided to go out with a bang.
One person with a gun could've helped him along.
|
