Virginia Tech Massacre

[Redbeard]

More importantly, if you're one of the people in the classroom and you missed the beginning of the altercation and you suddenly see two or more people shooting, how can you tell who is the bad guy? Whom do you shoot?

Given the scenario as you describe it, neither.  Keep your head down and your weapon concealed until/unless someone threatens you.

[Redbeard]

When this sort of thing occurs in the world outside of a college it is an isolated event.  We have no reason to believe it would magically occur more often on college campus when those same students don't go shooting people for stealing their parking space in a mall parking lot (or something like that) or for catching someone with their girlfriend off campus.

At the risk of sliding into the specific debate I'm attempting to avoid, where I live is a good example of what you are referring to.  In Dallas (and all of Texas I think) anyone who is an adult + non felon + not insane can not only legally buy a gun but is also able to get a concealed carry license provided they pass a course and pay a nominal fee (several hundred $ I think).  While we could get into a lengthy discussion about per capita crime rates and subtle differences statistically attributed to loose vs restrictive gun laws, in practice this is generally a non issue.  The kind of free for all madness in the streets predicted above (shootouts over parking spaces, etc) doesn't happen.  From looking at houses via a Realtor in the area before we purchased I know that my neighbors are more likely than not armed, but from what I understand very few likely choose to get a concealed carry license.  Either way, I don't fear them shooting me when I'm pulling into a parking space, changing lanes, etc. 

[MishaK]

When this sort of thing occurs in the world outside of a college it is an isolated event.  We have no reason to believe it would magically occur more often on college campus when those same students don't go shooting people for stealing their parking space in a mall parking lot (or something like that) or for catching someone with their girlfriend off campus.

Nobody is saying that it would happen more or less often in one place or another, just that adding more civilians with guns into the mix makes identifying friend from foe increasingly difficult. I'm not worried that this is a great statistical likelihood that students on campusses will go around shooting each other. Most people will choose to walk around unarmed anyway. I am just trying to point out that the original poster's argument is fraught with inconvenient complications that make that approach less salient than it sounds.

At the risk of sliding into the specific debate I'm attempting to avoid, where I live is a good example of what you are referring to.  In Dallas (and all of Texas I think) anyone who is an adult + non felon + not insane can not only legally buy a gun but is also able to get a concealed carry license provided they pass a course and pay a nominal fee (several hundred $ I think).  While we could get into a lengthy discussion about per capita crime rates and subtle differences statistically attributed to loose vs restrictive gun laws, in practice this is generally a non issue.  The kind of free for all madness in the streets predicted above (shootouts over parking spaces, etc) doesn't happen.  From looking at houses via a Realtor in the area before we purchased I know that my neighbors are more likely than not armed, but from what I understand very few likely choose to get a concealed carry license.  Either way, I don't fear them shooting me when I'm pulling into a parking space, changing lanes, etc. 

It's not so much a wild west style shootout that abundant weapons make more likely. The real problem is that the vast supply of guns in homes is a source for theft and black market sale by owners or household members who need cash. That is the overwhelming source of illegally obtained weapons in the US. Secondly, guns at home disproprtionately increase the risk of them being used against a member of the household in anger or by a household member as a means for committing suicide. (Now before you come back with the worn argument that a suicidal person will find other means, remember that most other means are survivable/preventable if the victim is found early enough. Death from overdose or attempts at asphyxiation through carbon monoxide poisoning can be prevented if spotted. Blowing your brains out can't.)

[head-case]

At the risk of sliding into the specific debate I'm attempting to avoid, where I live is a good example of what you are referring to.  In Dallas (and all of Texas I think) anyone who is an adult + non felon + not insane can not only legally buy a gun but is also able to get a concealed carry license provided they pass a course and pay a nominal fee (several hundred $ I think).  While we could get into a lengthy discussion about per capita crime rates and subtle differences statistically attributed to loose vs restrictive gun laws, in practice this is generally a non issue.  The kind of free for all madness in the streets predicted above (shootouts over parking spaces, etc) doesn't happen.  From looking at houses via a Realtor in the area before we purchased I know that my neighbors are more likely than not armed, but from what I understand very few likely choose to get a concealed carry license.  Either way, I don't fear them shooting me when I'm pulling into a parking space, changing lanes, etc. 

Before Monday, Texas had the distinction of the biggest gun massecre (22 killed in a diner) and the biggest campus massecre (16 at UT).  However, your remark that all of your fellow texans are armed seems to be inaccurate, since when the guy crashed his pickup truck through the front wall of the diner and started shooting, nobody in the diner had a gun to return fire.  The only place I know of where weapons are widely carried is Pakistan, where people make AK47 rifles by hand in their homes.  The scenario I described is pretty much indicative of Pakistan, if you substitute Camels for cars.

[Mayfielder]

I know this kind of sentiment is not much solace to the wounded or victims' loved ones but I just feel like pointing this out: What happened at Virginia Tech is EXTREMELY rare. A Columbine or Virginia Tech happens about once a decade. The odds are astronomically in your favor that you will get through life without being the victim of a tragedy like we saw last Monday.
Nothing earth-shattering about this observation - just felt like saying it. 

[mahlertitan]

I know this kind of sentiment is not much solace to the wounded or victims' loved ones but I just feel like pointing this out: What happened at Virginia Tech is EXTREMELY rare. A Columbine or Virginia Tech happens about once a decade. The odds are astronomically in your favor that you will get through life without being the victim of a tragedy like we saw last Monday.
Nothing earth-shattering about this observation - just felt like saying it. 

yeah, but once it has happened the odds of it happening again just got a lot higher.

[Redbeard]

Before Monday, Texas had the distinction of the biggest gun massecre (22 killed in a diner) and the biggest campus massecre (16 at UT).  However, your remark that all of your fellow texans are armed seems to be inaccurate, since when the guy crashed his pickup truck through the front wall of the diner and started shooting, nobody in the diner had a gun to return fire. 

That massacre you reference (Lubys in Killeen) rang a bell with me so I looked it up on wiki.  It occured prior to the change in Texas law allowing common concealed carry, and is actually considered to be a major reason the law was changed.  One of the survivors was an avid shooter who left her pistol in the car that day since it wasn't legal to carry.  She testified to the legislature that she could easily have stopped the killer (and saved her parents lives) if she had her gun with her then. 

Either way, I stated that my understanding is that very few people actually elect to go through the process and carry concealed, so even if this massacre had happened recently and no one inside was armed it wouldn't contradict my assertion.

[Dungeon Master]

I'm sure the NRA and its supporters will make excuses, but there is something seriously wrong with the USA and its love of guns. In 1997, a man named Martin Bryant went beserk in Tasmania, Australia and killed 35 people. It was our worst gun massacre ever. The Prime Minister, John Howard, (still in power) in probably his most courageous and best decision of his leadership got stringent gun laws passed, which severely restricted the sale and ownership of guns in Australia. Now, essentially all automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned in this country.

Now some statistics from the World Health Organisation's World Report on Violence and Health:

Firearm-related mortality, by manner of death and country
USA homicide deaths from firearms (1998): 11 802
Australia homicide deaths from firearms (1998) 56

Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide is about 6% that of the USA.

[Michel]

Has anyone heard about the controversy regarding Simon Cowell and American X Factor? When one of the singers said "this is in memoery of the Virgina Tech students, he rolled his eys apparently and now he is being criticised for it.

But what is wrong with that? I think it is the height of distaste; a silly teenager making a tribute to people he didn't even know. The collective "oh this is an awful tradegy" mentality does anger me, it is like everyone wants a piece of the action. To say, I spoke to someone from Virgina tech 20 years ago, I am particularly touched by this. etc etc. People love it. Like over here when Diana died; everyone loved sobbing insincerly.

And then not blink an eye when 170 die in Baghdad.

[greg]

Michel, in America it's called "American Idol", so they call it "American X Factor" where you live? Do you live in England?

And just last night they discussed it on the show, and they showed that Simon was talking to Paula (a discussion about the singer singing through his nose) and didn't hear what (what's his name) the singer said about VT. So Simon was rolling his eyes at Paula.
Then he openly said that he didn't intend to appear disrespectful for the families and people who died.

[greg]

I saw an interview with his dormmates (or roommates, one or the other) and they said the whole 9 months that he was living with them, he didn't say a word. He just walked by with his head down, so they were surprised to see him in the video, saying he seemed like a completely different person. I hope they find out just a little bit more about what made him "go over the edge". In the video he recorded, he mostly complained about stuff that really didn't make much sense and said "you had a choice, but now you will spill blood that cannot be wiped off" or something like that. But the whole thing is vague, too vague.

[mahlertitan]

Has anyone heard about the controversy regarding Simon Cowell and American X Factor? When one of the singers said "this is in memoery of the Virgina Tech students, he rolled his eys apparently and now he is being criticised for it.

But what is wrong with that? I think it is the height of distaste; a silly teenager making a tribute to people he didn't even know. The collective "oh this is an awful tradegy" mentality does anger me, it is like everyone wants a piece of the action. To say, I spoke to someone from Virgina tech 20 years ago, I am particularly touched by this. etc etc. People love it. Like over here when Diana died; everyone loved sobbing insincerly.

And then not blink an eye when 170 die in Baghdad.

it's not right to not blink an eye when 170 die in Baghdad, but it's equally insensitive to not be touched by the tragedy of VT. It is not the people's fault, when 170 people die in Baghdad, you see that maybe one line "170 die in Baghdad" on some newspaper, and that's it; when 33 Americans get shot, all the big news agencies and virtually all the newspapers report on the issue, it's not american people's fault of not sympathetic to Iraq, but rather media's fault.

[mahlertitan]

I saw an interview with his dormmates (or roommates, one or the other) and they said the whole 9 months that he was living with them, he didn't say a word. He just walked by with his head down, so they were surprised to see him in the video, saying he seemed like a completely different person. I hope they find out just a little bit more about what made him "go over the edge". In the video he recorded, he mostly complained about stuff that really didn't make much sense and said "you had a choice, but now you will spill blood that cannot be wiped off" or something like that. But the whole thing is vague, too vague.

I think it's much simpler than that, there was no clear motive. The guy is freaking insane, he was admitted into a mental hospital only 2 years ago, and stalks women.... He is simply an crazy individual, a crazy individual who was introverted, therefore depriving him a chance of getting mental help.

He really belonged to a mental hospital, not a campus.

[head-case]

Fair point.  We really need more information on the response to the VA Tech shooting.  Perhaps the police really did quickly enter the building and they have just left that part out of their released information.  At a gut level this seems very unlikely to me.  This killing stands out because of the very high number of people killed;  something is different here.  From the accounts released so far the killer wasn't highly trained (he bought the gun a month ago I think), so the shooter doesn't appear to be the unusual link.  Neither does the weapon used (9mm pistol and a .22).

I will say I'm cynical based on what happened in Columbine.  As you said their response was abysmal, but they have been generally very successful at covering this up.  I fear we may be seeing a repeat of Columbine in more ways than one.

A detailed timeline has been published by the BBC world service which seems questionable.  It says that the second round of shootings started at 9:15, that police were not notified until 9:45, and that the shooting stopped when officers reached the second floor and the shooter killed himself at 9:50.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6563451.stm#0926
 

[vandermolen]

Just read a quote from someone in the US (letters Daily Telegraph) saying that gun possession is as much a part of American life as tea drinking is in Britain (although gun/knife crime is on the increase in Britain so I don't want to sound sanctimonious)

Another point was this guy mad or evil? My wife, who is kinder hearted, always says that the perpetrator of this type of crime must be seriously ill but i'm not so sure if evil does not play its part in this, although, this South Korean man was clearly very disturbed.

Morbidly fascinating as it was, I don't think that it was a good idea to show his self-justifying video on TV around the world.

So sad for those involved.

[MishaK]

I think it's much simpler than that, there was no clear motive. The guy is freaking insane, he was admitted into a mental hospital only 2 years ago, and stalks women.... He is simply an crazy individual, a crazy individual who was introverted, therefore depriving him a chance of getting mental help.

He really belonged to a mental hospital, not a campus.

No, it's never that simple. Read his plays that he wrote in his creative writing class. My bet is he was a kid who was traumatized by a move to a new culture at a young age, then had to endure sexual abuse as a child (see the play about Richard McBeef). In addition, I suspect he had a lot of pressure from home to succeed in school, which were high expectations he didn't quite fulfill (his sister went to an ivy (Princeton), he didn't). That coupled with a general youth culture that glorifies "winners" and looks down upon "losers" probably contributed to a combination of lethally low self-esteem and inadequate socialization which meant he had nobody he trusted and opened up to, so all of this was just bottled up until it exploded one day.

[bhodges]

I'm sure the NRA and its supporters will make excuses, but there is something seriously wrong with the USA and its love of guns.

I don't have time to enter this discussion in any depth, but I totally and completely agree.

--Bruce

[Redbeard]

A detailed timeline has been published by the BBC world service which seems questionable.  It says that the second round of shootings started at 9:15, that police were not notified until 9:45, and that the shooting stopped when officers reached the second floor and the shooter killed himself at 9:50.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6563451.stm#0926
 

Thanks for the link.  This also suggests that he had a full 30 minutes of killing time before police entered the building, but according to this the delay was due to notification/dispatch.  Either way, something went very wrong from a police point of view.   Everyone keeps saying they should have shut down the whole university after the first shooting.  I can't argue that either way, but SOP for this kind of thing would be to have a uniformed presence on the main sections of campus.  Even a single officer in the vicinity  of Norris Hall would have saved countless lives.  A single officer could have called it in and then engaged the shooter immediately.  At the very least, he would have been able to distract the shooter from his killing spree while other officers could respond.  More likely, a single officer with hundreds of hours of range time plus even basic tactical training would be more than a match for this guy.

[Redbeard]

Morbidly fascinating as it was, I don't think that it was a good idea to show his self-justifying video on TV around the world.

I couldn't agree more.  While ordinary people look at the pictures and see him as the monster that he was, other would be mass killers have to see him being lionized the way they could only dream of.  I thought it was standard practice for the media not to engage in this kind of reward for killers, especially suicide killers.  They are even reading his nutjob "manifesto" on the news.  It makes me sick.   

[Harvested Sorrow]

Now some statistics from the World Health Organisation's World Report on Violence and Health:

Firearm-related mortality, by manner of death and country
USA homicide deaths from firearms (1998): 11 802
Australia homicide deaths from firearms (1998) 56

Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide is about 6% that of the USA.

I've noticed that people always fail to pull up the overall stats for violent crimes pre and post-ban to look at the situation as a whole rather than just using the gun related stats.  Is there any particular reason for this?


Okay, I'll be fair, I know the reason, but I'm curious if anyone who does this sort of cherry picking will be honest about it.