Captain's Quarters -

Some of the press has the name reversed, Cho Seung-Hui, in the Korean form, but the family name is Cho.

Can't wait to hear the sage advice of the talking heads this morning... You can bet the headlines will include a rant by Rosie on The View... remember, she's hanging upside down in a state of constant depression because of the Columbine shootings.

As Clayton Camer reminds us:

"f someone commits mass murder with a weapon other than a gun, the national news media usually ignore it. For example, Hector Escudero started a fire at a casino in Puerto Rico in December 1987 as part of labor union activism, and killed 96 people. Julio Gonzalez threw $1 worth of gasoline into an illegal night club in New York City in April 1990 to get back at his girlfriend, and killed 87 people. These stories received almost no national news coverage at the time--while mass murders that were substantially smaller received vastly more coverage. Why? Gonzalez and Escudero's crimes didn't advance the cause of gun control."

I wonder if 20/20 hindsight will uncover all sorts of warning signs about Cho?

The best advice of the various talking heads that I caught last night was that the press should stop calling this the "most deadly shooting" because it will only prompt the next deranged person to try to make his/her shooting even bigger.

But the worst coverage was when CNN last night not only kept up a "most deadly" caption, but at one point added "high school vs. college". You got the feeling that they were tauting the potential high school shooters that they now had to out do the college shooters.

AntonK,

Great comment; Liberals have their agenda, the crime needs to fit the agenda or it will receive zero attention. This hideous story fits their agenda quite well.

I was born and raised in So. California, but recently moved to Montana. While building my new home here last year, I noticed that "all" of the workers on my new home carried guns in their trucks. I asked them one day while eating lunch "why do you all carry guns"; the answer took me by surprise " you never know when you will run into a rattle snake and need to kill it, also if a crazy decides he needs to break into my home or truck, we can't count on the law to protect us from the crazies out here in the sticks; hell, some of these small towns only have one officer on duty at any given time." One of the guys told me "people don't fight much here, and the crime rate is really low, this is due to the fact that most everyone has a loaded gun near by; you don't see road rage here, you don't see many people getting up in the faces of others; folks disagree on something and move on."

Now, I don't know much about all of that, other than it's all new to me; however, I must say that there is a level of civil behavior here that I have not seen in my adult life. I don't know if "guns" have anything to do with that or not, I'm just repeating what the locals have told me.

As usual, the MSM ignores the plight of Native Americans.

Don't forget the Massacre at Wounded Knee, where Army shooters killed approximately 300 Sioux.

Guess official murder doesn't count.

As I said in the earlier thread,

"The criticism here is that the Va. Tech campus was safe because it was a "Gun Free Zone". Yesterday's terrible events showed it was not. There's a line of thought in this country that seems to plague people with the notion of the power of collective belief. "If we all agree this place is a gun free zone, then it will be." The problem is it only takes one person to violate that."

We now know who that person was. Laws are only as effective as the means used to enforce them. Gun control laws are only as effective as the means used to keep guns away from criminals. Choosing to limit guns from people who obey the laws does nothing but allow tragedies like this to happen.

Choosing to pass laws that are by design have no effect on those who choose to break them is the height of stupidity.

But that's the Dhimmicrats for you.

Keemo,
Great observation, however totally not PC. But guns make people more gentle, this is for sure. We have more proof of that, than of Global Warming.

But for schools there is this ..

The Bath School disaster is the name given to not one (as the name implies) but three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

If the shooter was a Muslim, Islam would be immediately be blamed (please don't deny that). Since the shooter is South Korean, chances are he is either Christian or Buddhist. It's strange that since that is the case the religious affiliation of the shooter is not an issue.

Neo wrote (April 17, 2007 09:37 AM):

Don't forget the Massacre at Wounded Knee, where Army shooters killed approximately 300 Sioux.

Guess official murder doesn't count.

An excellent point, Mr. Anderson.

I recently read (can't recall where; I believe it was in an article by Glenn Reynolds) that "the state" (i.e. modern governments) has committed more murders in this past century than all the wars of the century combined. In other words, government goons with guns, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or Iraq, went around rounding up and murdering people. In almost every case, the people were unarmed. As the character of Prof. Groeteschele (Walter Matthau) said in the 1964 motion picture "Fail Safe" (paraphrase):

"What if the nazis had been met by Jews with guns?"

At the base of the Second Amendment is the idea that the government must be counterbalanced in extremis by an armed citizenry.

Cho murdered thirty-two people because he had a gun and they didn't.

Hitler murdered twelve million people because his Gestapo and SS had guns and they didn't.

Our schools teach “safe sex”, our popular culture celebrates promiscuous behavior/abortion and the “whatever floats your boat” attitude has reigned since the sexual revolution in the 60’s.

By the time Americans get married (if they get married), they’ve probably been involved in dozens of broken “relationships”. We’re told to “get over it” and “move on”.

But some people aren't able “get over it” and “move on”. The shooter couldn't.

When a popular culture encourages people to think of each other as disposable, as inconveniences and as commodities, then some people are going to take that line of thinking to a different level.

Pope John Paul II spoke often of “The Culture of Death” and what happened at Virginia Tech is a manifestation of it.

Docjim:
I suspect I know why you are not responding to me on the "multiculturalism" thread. You may agree that I have a point in regard to the Jewish students. If so, you cannot say so. You know that to admit anything that is not 100% pro-Israel is to label yourself an anti-Semeitic Holocaust denier. I understand.

Dave, If the shooter was a Muslim, Islam would be immediately be blamed (please don't deny that). Since the shooter is South Korean, chances are he is either Christian or Buddhist. It's strange that since that is the case the religious affiliation of the shooter is not an issue.

I would have to assume from this that you can cite a few cases where someone committed mass murder in a school and did so ''in the name of Jesus or Budda'' and the act was sanctioned by his church.

Otherwise, the comment is stupid.

The killer used an Austrian gun for his murder spree. Ironically, the German press blames Charlton Heston.

If Austria isn't making guns for murder sprees in the U.S., they are making sniper rifles for Iranians to shoot U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Captain,

I know this is a horrible event and is so difficult to talk about but,...

"the deadliest civilian attack in our nation's history" happened on Septemeber 11, 2001.

He wasn't "of Korean descent." He was in fact a Korean citizen living in America.

This isn't a tragedy, its a criminal act of evil.

"I would have to assume from this that you can cite a few cases where someone committed mass murder in a school and did so ''in the name of Jesus or Budda'' and the act was sanctioned by his church.

Otherwise, the comment is stupid."

Indeed.

If this was a case where a church sanctioned the killing of non-Christians, then the original comment would be notable.

As it is, it's a poor and disgusting deflection of the real issue.

Here's a question. Would this guy have been able to buy this gun -- a semi-automatic handgun with 17 rounds in a clip...

http://personalsecurityzone.com/cgi-win/order/prodlist.exe/PSZ/?Template=ProdDetail.htm&ProductID=28767

If this law wasn't allowed to expire...

WASHINGTON — The expiration of the 10-year-old ban on 19 types of assault weapons Monday drove up business at some gun stores and set off sparks in the political world.

John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, said President Bush had failed tests of character and leadership. But the National Rifle Association lauded the demise of what it called a "misguided law, which had no effect on the actions of criminals, but penalized law-abiding citizens."

Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons. However, he did not press Congress to send him such a bill, and its Republican leaders never did.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm

All this focus on banning guns, when Timothy McVeigh and friend(s) killed 168 and injured over 850 makes no sense to me.

dave,

I was unaware that the thread about multiculturalism was still active. I also thought I'd made my position pretty clear. But I've gone back and posted another response.

And, yes, I think you're an anti-Semite. Otherwise, what is it with your fixation with Jews?

Tom Shipley:

There are plenty of handguns available with clips that hold 12 - 15 rounds plus one in the chamber. They were never banned.

That so-called assault weapon ban just banned guns that LOOKED LIKE automatic weapons even though they were NOT automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are illegal and have been for decades. The "assault rifle ban" achieved absolutely nothing.

Well, wasn't the ban on semi-automatic weapons? Which is what this guy bought and used?

It's ironic that while the anti-semite terrorist-coddling holocaust deniers in the democrat party come out with their usual spew about confiscating guns, we hear news that a holocaust survivor, Professor Liviu Librescu, 76, was murdered while he blocked the doorway to protect the students in his class during the Virginia massacre. He saved their lives.

Yes, democrats, there was a holocaust, and this holocaust survivor accomplished more in his act of self-sacrifice than all your gun grabbing totalitarian b.s. will ever accomplish.

Deal with it.

Tom Shipley,

The assault weapons ban was almost as Byzantine as it was stupid. Among its more laughable requirements was that semi-auto rifles could not be sold if they had a bayonet stud (to try to stop the rash of bayonettings that plagued the country during the '80s and early '90s).

/sarcasm

The AWB did not ban semi-auto pistols, but did restrict magazine capacities to not more than ten rounds. The only difference that the AWB would have made in this case would be that Cho would have had to change the magazines in his Glock more often.

Re: Tom Shipley at April 17, 2007 11:34 AM

The ban was a ban on semi-automatic rifles that looked too "scary." Different semi-automatic rifles with the same internal design, that looked more like standard deer rifles were not banned. That's what made the "assault-rifle" ban so ridiculous. A lot of it was based on cosmetics alone.

According to wikipedia, semi-automatic handguns that fit these standards were banned:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer

Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold

Unloaded weight of 50 oz or more

A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban

This gun fits that description, no?

dave,

Islam instructs it's followers to kill unbelievers.

Neither Christianity nor Buddhism do.

EVeryone else can spot the difference.

TomS.

In a word, no.

Tom Shipley,

No, neither of the weapons used by Cho would have been banned. In fact (if I'm informed correctly), one of them was a .22.

TOM SHIPLEY-

You had better rethink your position on weapons bans. Virginia Tech, as well as all other Virginia college campuses, was a gun-free zone, handguns having been banned there some time ago. A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus was defeated in January 2006 by not even getting out of the subcommittee stage.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Some enterprising media elite should ask this guy if he still feels the same way today.

So much for your gun control and weapons bans. If colleges and their administrators are going to remove weapons from the public, then they better have the requisite security in place to prevent these incidents. In this particular case, Virginia Tech failed miserably.

Tom, I know that you are desperate to blame this crime on Bush, but the fact of the matter is the AWB would have made no difference in this case. Popping out an empy magazine and inserting a new one takes, literally, about 2 seconds. The difference between 10 rounds and 17 rounds per clip is insignificant.

"Popping out an empty magazine and inserting a new one takes, literally, about 2 seconds. The difference between 10 rounds and 17 rounds per clip is insignificant."

Well, potentially, the difference is anything but insignificant. I mean, 2 seconds and 7 rounds could mean a lot in a situation like this.

And I'm not trying to pin this on Bush or anyone. This was the act of the guy and is solely responsible. We shouldn't blame Bush or VA. Tech or anyone else.

What we can do is debate gun laws and university safety measures.

I know the 2nd amendment allows citizens to carry fire arms. But, this was written before semi-automatic weapons existed.

What's the practical use of this particular weapon for an non-law enforcement officer?

Mark:
"Islam instructs it's followers to kill unbelievers."

Show me where.

Well, potentially, the difference is anything but insignificant. I mean, 2 seconds and 7 rounds could mean a lot in a situation like this.

How would it make a difference?

What's the practical use of this particular weapon for an non-law enforcement officer?

The practical use of this type of weapon is to stop maniacs like this Cho character.

What difference would it make to a non-police officer.

Only rarely does a single round take down an assailant.

If there's more than one assailant, you need way more than 4 or 5 rounds.

I agree with Ed that this is not a gun-control issue. The criminal behavior of students, which has only gotten worse over the years, is a direct reflection on the failure of parents to raise them properly. And that applies to parents of all political affiliations. Gun access has never been the cause of a mass shooting. You could have a table of loaded weapons in the middle of a room of 100 people and not a signle one of them would commit murder unless murder was already in their heart. And when that's the case, they'll find a way to do it with or without a readily available firearm.

Having said that, and speaking as an ardent liberal, I'm all in favor of more states adopting right-to-carry laws as long as they're accompained by mandatory handgun training and education. If even one student was trained and carrying, this may have been less of a tragedy.

Jeffrey

Mark:
"Islam instructs it's followers to kill unbelievers."

dave:
"Show me where."

Go to your favorite search engine (I use dogpile) and look for "islam kill unbelievers."

There, was that too hard for you to do?

It should be pointed out that a university is not a high school. Administrators of the latter have a great deal more control over the student body than administrators of the former.

You have to keep in mind that to persons with The Time's mindset, there is no difference between children and adults; they are all incompetent unless they are part of 'authority'.

Bostonian:
"There, was that too hard for you to do?"

Yes. Can you please help me? Can you show me where in the Koran it says to kill unbelievers?

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [emphasis mine - dj505]

Koran, 9:5

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). [emphasis mine - dj505]

Koran, 9:123

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. [emphasis mine - dj505]

Koran 47:4

I've seen different translations of these passages. Some are much more, um, bloody than others. It would be of considerable interest to see how a Muslim interprets them.

An-Nisa (The Women), section 4, verse 88:

"Their real wish is to see that you become a disbeliever, as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may become exactly like them. So you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as protectors or helpers."

Is that good enough for you?

DocJim and Captain Ed:
Thanks.

"It would be of considerable interest to see how a Muslim interprets them."

My Iranian coworker, a devout Muslim (one of her family members memorized the Koran!) just left for the day. I will find out about these passages tomorrow. I am an unbeliever, and she has not killed me. I expect to find out that these passages are not unlike the countless passages that can be found in the bible which say that homosexuals should be killed (Leviticus 20:13) and that if you curse your parents you should also be killed (Leviticus 20:9). Blasphemers=dead. Adulterers=dead. Prostitutes=burned alive. You could go on forever. Do you think Christianity and Judaism are acceptable religions when they teach these things?

dave wrote (April 17, 2007 02:27 PM):

I expect to find out that these passages are not unlike the countless passages that can be found in the bible which say that homosexuals should be killed (Leviticus 20:13) and that if you curse your parents you should also be killed (Leviticus 20:9). Blasphemers=dead. Adulterers=dead. Prostitutes=burned alive. You could go on forever. Do you think Christianity and Judaism are acceptable religions when they teach these things?

Somehow, I just KNEW this was coming. Maybe my Irish ancestry is kicking in and making me prescient as I get older, or maybe the chemicals I'm exposed to all day are mutating me and giving me psychic powers. But I just KNEW that dave, when confronted with passages from the Koran that urge Muslims to kill and make war on nonbelievers, would duck and turn it into an attack on Christians and Jews.

How DID I know?

/sarcasm

Docjim:

IIRC, this is the same dave who extols the worker's paradise of Cuba, a place from which people risk death just to escape.

I think that comes from the fact that both Judaism and Christianity has gone through an Enlightenment, and Islam has yet to do so on a broad basis. Those who emigrate to the West probably understand these passages as archaic, but those in other places believe in them literally. And the notion that murdering unbelievers is not based in the Qur'an is uninformed.

This is about personal responsibility. If there were NO gun control laws we wouldn't have the silliest of all, the CHL (yes, this is gun control, or, more basic, WEAPON control, as it makes you carry a GUN but no other WEAPON, as extending batons and other forms of non-lethal force AREN'T covered, and are approved for LEO use only) which forces upon you the choice of taking a gun or nothing. We might have had others on campus that had something besides a gun (not that, amongst a panoply of choices I'd have even considered picking up anything else) that could have entered the fray. The main problem with these laws is not just the lack of weapon availability, but the mindset that it's caused, i.e, not to defend yourself but to duck and cover and look for a uniformed hero, and by extension, to expect the uniformed hero to have inhuman capabilities. At this point, you have dropped your responsibility for yourself and put your safety in someone else's hands. This, in my opinion, is where we go wrong in way too many things in life, be it gun control, or taxes, or nanny laws, or illegal immigration, or anything else that plagues us. It always seems that at the core of the problem is an abdication by one and all for their own responsibility in a situation. I can think of no law that would have prevented this criminal act that I would vote for because it would, by definition, be a restriction on a legitimate freedom. At the point that it became a criminal act, there was no solution except the timely death of the shooter, by whichever means was the quickest, even if less humane. Any law that would prevent THAT, we should all vote against or repeal. Otherwise, there's nothing to do but use this as a teaching tool to our children to always be prepared, mentally as well as physically.

DocJim:
I did not duck anything. I said I would get back to you tomorrow. Did you read that? I am not going to rely on far right wing websites to find out what real life Muslims think about these passages, or even that the passages are as you quote them (You guys still believe achmadinejad said that Israel whould be swept into the sea. Pardon me if I don't trust you). I prefer to find out about this from a Muslim who knows Persian and Arabic and the Muslim faith intimately. Also, drawing analogies is a valid technique in discussing an issue.

Captain Ed:
An ex-coworker of mine believed in a literal translation of every word of the bible, and belonged to a study group who did as well. This was in Chicago, not Oklahoma. There are plenty of people around who believe in the bible as the true word of God, even though we had the Enlightenment.

I have read a lot of the bible and all of the Koran. The Bible is the most violent, psychotic piece of lilterature I ever read. The Koran is not nearly in the same league.

Jeff, this was a kid of South Korean heritage who had lived in the U.S. for years. I'm not sure what South Korean-American parents are like, but if they are anything like the typical Japanese-American or Chinese-American parents, it's much more likely that they were too strict and driving with this kid than too loose.

Captain Ed:
Didn't Jews go through the Enlightenment? Regarding Kosher foods, why are they still following Leviticus rules if they went through the Enlightenment? What makes one Leviticus rule OK, and the other one not?

I forgot about my favorite Bible teaching. No mixed threads! No cotton blends! At least the punishment for wearing polyester is not death.

Jim M:

Or he simply could have been nuts. It could have been something purely chemical. I have friends with a mentally disturbed kid and they do not deserve any blame.

***
Dave, your personal impressions of the Bible and the Koran are not that interesting, frankly. What concerns most of us here is the fiery infidel-hating speeches in mosques and madrassahs around the world. You could look that up, too, if you are interested. It is hardly a secret.

Also google "September 11, 2001" while you are at it.

Here's something interesting I found--based on this summary, Korean-American families in general may have similar pressures as other Asian-American families (And NoDonkey, there is no evidence that any of the things you cited were involved here and it's disturbing that you're trying to twist this for your political benefit without the least hint of a connection)

Korean American Mental Health in its Familial Context

This 2004-2006 research extends from 2003-2004 survey and interview research with Korean American and South Asian American college students at the University of Illinois. At the heart of the research was survey and ethnographic research conducted by a six person interdisciplinary team that included four stupendous graduate students: Grace Chung (Human and Community Development), Jin-Heon Jung (Anthropology) Hyeyoung Kang (Human and Community Development), and Euna Oh (Counseling Psychology). Throughout the project, we culled field research notes (on interviews, participant observations, and survey administration) in a web-based data archive.

Project Description

We conducted interdisciplinary research on the mental health and functioning of Korean American adolescents and their immigrant parents. Our study was premised on a seeming paradox in mental health research on Asian Americans: a high level of competent academic, familial, and occupational functioning, and yet high levels of psychological distress symptoms (e.g., depression, low self-esteem, etc.) that are presumably due to Asian Americans’ immigrant experience and minority status (e.g., stress of immigration and adjustment to the new environment, culture, and language; thwarted occupational aspiration of the parent generation; socioeconomic pressures; family expectations for the second-generation children to succeed). We explored parent-child pathways at work in this manifest resilience -- and the hidden risks -- of the members of one immigrant community.

Hypotheses and Goals

Based on our previous research on college-aged Korean Americans, we hypothesized that there would be more manifest difficulties in family relationships and functioning for adolescents than for college students. Having identified several coping strategies of college students that appeared to enhance their resilience from earlier family difficulties, we were interested in exploring the extent to which as well as how these coping strategies developed over the course of adolescence. Given the high rates of small entrepreneurship among this population, we hypothesized that there would be considerable adolescent independence from parents, with accompanying psychological distance.

Preliminary Findings

The survey data are still being prepared for analysis. The ethnographic research confirmed that even high functioning families (i.e., children function well in school and parents in the workplace) experienced considerable family-related stress. We found evidence to support our initial working hypothesis that the strategies that Korean American college students employed to cope with family stress were also in place for some adolescents. These strategies include: adolescent recognition of parental suffering related to immigration, racism, language barriers, downward occupational mobility, and economic insecurities; reliance on personal religious faith; and resigned acceptance of their position as children of immigrant parents. For other adolescents, we found hints of some behavioral problems (e.g., suicidal ideation, minor conduct problems such as stealing and running away from home) that appeared to be related to family pressures and strains. However, these instances of adolescent behavioral problems did not for the large part manifest in overt family dysfunction, as the adolescents and parents appeared to “contain” and manage this suffering. We nonetheless consider this type of evidence as pointing to the significant level of psychological suffering among Korean American parents and children despite the manifest resilience they exhibit. To have the whole family succeed in the immigration enterprise involves much psychic energy, pain, tension that must be managed by both parents and the children in order to contain and domesticate the individual frustration and to sustain the family. In this context, we found that parents struggled to strategize optimal ways to raise their bicultural children in order to flourish in the United States. We have documented that these sufferings and struggles are largely kept private within families and are accessed by researchers ethnographically only after repeated contacts. For the rare families that publicly acknowledge and attempt to seek help for the “fall outs” (in the form of adolescent externalizing behavior), there are virtually no resources or accurate information to assist the parents and the children successfully negotiate these family crises.

Jim M,

What political benefit is that?

So there's a political party that's against cultural values which value human life and community? Which one might that be?

And there's a new thing called a "link" that's really useful.

NoDonkey, is there any suggestion that this guy was part of the "free sex" crowd? Not at this time. But there is evidence that this guy may have had a strict internal code of conduct.

So why try to bring your biased pro-lifepolitical agenda into a matter that currently appears to have nothing to do with "liberal" society?

Unless of course you have no personal integrity about what you say or how you twist things so long as it serves your end goals.

Perhaps the person with the problem with morals is you and not society at large, if that's the case.

JiMm,

Yes, wouldn't want to be at all pro-life in a situation like this. Might obscure all the finger pointing going on at the police, the VA Tech President, the NRA, President Bush, etc.

Because that's going to result in so many changes. Just like after Columbine.

Sorry, but I don't believe any of the superficial changes that will result from this tragedy, will prevent an incident like this from happening again. Last I checked, gasoline is legal and you can do every bit of the damage with gasoline or ammonium nitrate that this man did with his guns.

If you're upset by that benign of a post, which was really just a thought about some of the cultural factors that might be a factor in someone committing a heinous deed like this, then perhaps you should play in a different sandbox.

What exactly would be the harm of encouraging people to value other people and their community more? It's revealing how you think I'm trying to promote some sort of political agenda.

> The shooting is now the deadliest civilian attack in our nation's history, with 33 dead, including the gunman, and "several dozen" wounded.

Err, that sentence from the first graf is wrong.

May I commend you to a similar episode in 1927, which killed 45, and
of which I learned when I lived in Toledo, next to Michigan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
http://mmm.lib.msu.edu/search/browsedisplay.cfm?t=1&subj=Bath%20Consolidated%20Schools%20(Bath,%20Michigan)--Explosion%201927
http://www.michmarkers.com/startup.asp?startpage=S0631.htm
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~bauerle/disaster.htm

You didn't say that they "might" be in play; you wrote that they were in play without any evidence that they were in any way connected with the current situation: "When a popular culture encourages people to think of each other as disposable, as inconveniences and as commodities, then some people are going to take that line of thinking to a different level. "

Were you listening to some sort of radio show today that tried to promote its views by connecting this to a "general breakdown" in society without anything to support it? That's seems to me to be the same type of political posturing that Falwell and Robertson tried after 9/11.

P.S. Koreans with a religious affiliation are generally Buddhists and Confucianists, with a large minority being Christian. It's more likely that this guy was a Buddhist than anything else, so why don't you blame "Buddhist values" for the killings?

> my cousin Mike pointed out in the comments yesterday, such permits require the holder to be 21 years of age or older. That would have disqualified at least three-quarters of the students on campus.

Yet would have included most if not all teachers, coaches, staff, custodians, etc ., who ARE over 21.

But since no one could legally carry a handgun on the VaTech campus, the victims never had a chance. That point cannot be argued away.

I think I read something in the Declaration Of Indepependence about 'certain unalienable rights' including 'LIFE'. But the Virginia Legislature made it harder for VT students to enjoy that right by denying them a means to preserve it.

>>Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

I'll tell you who felt safe on the VT campus yesterday: Cho Seung-Hui. He knew unless he ran into a cop, he would be unopposed by any armed citizen. He was free to murder at will.

Here are a few things I submit are true: 1) we can't 'uninvent' the firearm; 2) we live in a world where people do bad things for no reason; and 3) ultimately we are all responsible for our own safety.

If you surrender that responsibility to to others, you must be prepared for the consequences.

Barry and all--compare the risk of (i) the number of deaths caused by a deranged shooter in a college no-gun zone to (ii) the number of deaths caused by drunk, uncautious or improperly trained college kids with guns.

Over time, which do you think will kill more people?

I think all you pro-gun types have lost all your common sense.

"I think that comes from the fact that both Judaism and Christianity has gone through an Enlightenment,"

No, not really (although that also has an effect). It comes first from the fact that the context of those verses gives reasons for the command -- it's not an end in itself but a means to an end. (The stated purpose, in a word, was to make the Jewish nation stand out from the nations around it; all the punishments you quote were followed by a statement of the form "so may you cleanse the land from the evil"). Many of the commands in the OT and NT were given in that way (for a later example, Christ commanded his followers to sell all they had in one situation, and to buy a sword in another).

Your examples are still violent, and Christians and Jews both have to face it; but that sets it apart from the Koran, in which commands are given without explanation or recourse.

So in Judaism and Christianity, you can be nonviolent because you're a literalist or because you follow the Enlightenment (ideas matter more to you than the holy writings). In Islam you can only be nonviolent if you follow the Enlightenment.

And by the way, "a member of her family memorized the Koran" is not an impressive credential. That's standard for devout Moslems -- their faith descends from a society without literacy, so memorization is the only way to reliably transfer knowledge. The Koran was originally passed on through memorization, not writing.

It's also worth noting that Persian (Iranian) Islam is different from Arabic Islam. This doesn't disqualify the answer you get; I'm eager to hear it. Just a note that your answer probably won't apply to most Moslems.

Well JiMml, you're just wrong. I was speculating. Didn't say it was a factor in this case.

And why do have this smug assumption that only YOU, the annointed, possess the cabaility for free thought? This while you write predicatable questions about guns, questions that are doubtlessly being repeated right now by the media on cable news.

But of course I must be influenced only by radio shows, because I could not possibly think differently from you, Mr. All-Knowing, on my own.

That's not very tolerant or even very thoughtful, is it JiMm?

Our popular culture and it's completely nihilistic, materialististic worldview, causes a great deal of problems.

I'm not saying there is any culture at all which greatly values a deranged loner like the shooter was. When I wrote the original post, it looked like this was a lover's spat.

But our popular culture does "send a message" to kids that if they're not living a life straight out of an MTV Rap Video, they are missing out and they are a loser.

It sends the message that the best thing in life is to be young and to be living a hedonistic, wild life. That if you aren't "living the life" at 21, you have nothing at all to look forward to, because you'll soon be old, fat and boring.

To absolve our popular culture from all responsibility for disturbed individuals who are misguided enough to buy their message, is to perpetuate the problem.

Jim M, how do you explain the overwhelming statistical evidence that the right of gun ownership and concealed carry DECREASES violent crime?

Or that in every major metropolitan area in the US and other countries where firearms are outlawed a significant INCREASE in violent crime has occurred.

Overwhelming. Consistent. Factual.

I've been waiting a decade for liberals to explain this one. Good luck, Jimmy.

Captain, maybe someone else pointed this out to you, but this was not the largest civilian massacre in the US, that title goes to the Bath School Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Do you all remember the murders that took place at a mall in Salt Lake City a few months ago? A young whack job evil person went to this mall, heavily armed with the intent to kill as many men/woman/children as possible. This evil person had a bag full of weapons, most or all of which were purchased illegally. The guy sets up shop and starts killing innocent civilians. Just happens that an "off-duty" officer was within eye sight, pulled his weapon out and killed the evil scum before he could carry out his plan to it's fullest extent. I think something like 5-6 were killed; however, this guy would have killed dozens more based on the weapons he had in possession.

Comrades,

Go back and look at the first thread CE put out yesterday; read the comments made by our lefties. Monkei actually was one of the first to expose the game plan for Liberals and their allies in the media. Last week we experienced a full on attack on the first amendment by the drive-bys; it didn't take these sickos but mere hours to see how they could spin this tragedy into an assault on the second amendment. Nothing matters to Liberals other than spreading Liberalism. Our country is in mourning, and the drive-by media wastes not an hour to spin this into an attack on the second amendment, while leading Liberal politicians were quick to blame this tragedy on Bush and his policies. Absolutely everything that happens around the world is the fault of GW Bush.

What would have been wrong with leading Liberals and their partners in the media, simply allowing the country some time to sort this thing out; some time for mourning; some time to let the greatness of America (it's people) to dig in and help these families out. Answer: impossible for people so inflicted with the deadly disease "Liberalism". These people truly are sick & twisted Godless people...

Keemo, excuse me, my post plainly said that using this tragedy was morally and totally wrong as a mouthpiece for lifting gun control, it was merely an act of a crazed person with a gun ... and that introducing the right for beer chugging students the right to have arms in their dorms was not the answer. Now if that is a real issue for "comrades" like yourself so be it, politicize this away ... I could care less how many guns you own, how many you think you need, I don't really care, I in fact have a CWL here in TN and always have one on my bike when I ride, but I am totally against the right to have a weapon in a college dorm, sorry, if that makes me the big bad liberal on here, so be it. Yet there you all finding a way to promote your student's right to bear arms in their dorms.

Now, get on back to your Rush Limbaugh hate show.

Keemo repeats Limbaughs talking points like their originally his. Bush League tactics. Nodonkey blames our popular culture on Democrats.....even though there are as many republicans in this country as dems, but somehow, magically, the dems pull all the popular culture strings, puh-lease, get real. Quit blaming a crazed killer on the "liberals". I'm for concealed carry, I hunt, I own guns, AND I WOULD DEFEND MY HOME WITH MY GUNS! I vote democratic and I'm damn proud of it. Blaming everything on liberals or dems is just a lazy way out for close-minded people. People like that are dinosaurs. CE doesn't blame everything on the dems, you know why? Because he's intellectually honest, unlike some other people on this site.

Do either of you actually ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? Let me give you both a little history lesson.

Rush Limbaugh invented the term "drive-by media". This is not a talking point, but rather a term. I happen to like the term and find it rather fitting.

Michael Savage (to the best of my knowledge) invented the phrase "Liberalism is a mental disorder".

Sean Hannity (to the best of my knowledge) invented the phrase "Liberalism is a disease".

Ann Coulter wrote a book titled "Godless: The Church of Liberalism".

You see guys, I used (4) different sources in that one single comment; but if you want to give Rush all of the credit, go right ahead. Your obsession with Rush is understandable; the guy sticks nails in your failed ideology 5 days a week, while exposing Liberal plots and game plans days ahead of the launch.

My comment was directed at leading Liberal politicians & the members of the Liberal media whom are guilty of exactly what I'm accusing them of. The fact that you guys vote for these people is your privilege as an American citizen. Just watch as this story unfolds. Four different major media outlets jumped all over the 2nd amendment issue in their papers today. Two leading Democrats today actually placed blame for this tragedy on Bush. The fact that you guys vote for this behavior speaks volume about what kind of behavior you must agree with. This is why you don't get warm & loving responses here. Not very complicated now is it?

And then their is the "Matinee Mitt Gun Owners Clubs" already claiming that armed students and professors would be the answer to problems like this ... that's just what I wanted when I sent my two kids to college, to be surrounded by a bunch of students and professors with sidearms strapped to their sides. Amazing! Do you people even think before you talk about these things? Students at colleges die every year at chugging parties ... and you want to introduce guns to that environment.

This was all about a crazed individual who went even crazier. It's a disaster that happened right here in college town USA. It's not the excuse for all of us to go back to 1872 Wild West Days.

I read about the MSM and the liberal issues above, and then you go them one better taking this incredible disaster and floating gun ownership on its back.
Posted by: Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 16, 2007 04:18 PM

Little more to your comment than you stated above. Gun ownership is already our privilege; no floating required "second amendment"...

Second Amendment: declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary" to maintaining a free state, and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

wtanksleyjr:
“… it's not an end in itself but a means to an end. (The stated purpose, in a word, was to make the Jewish nation stand out from the nations around it; all the punishments you quote were followed by a statement of the form "so may you cleanse the land from the evil")”

Please tell me the Bible version, along with Chapter and verse, of what you are talking about. I am looking at the King James Version. Are you talking about this in Leviticus?:

22 ‘You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out. 23 And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them. 24 But I have said to you, “You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples.

If so, are you saying that now that the land has been cleansed from evil, followers are now free to pick and choose which laws to follow? Why keep the part about not eating blood but ignore the one about not mixing seeds in the field? Who makes these decisions? Is it an individuals choice?

Does the above quote account for all the violence I have read throughout the Old Testament?

“’a member of her family memorized the Koran’ is not an impressive credential”

It is for me. I can’t remember where my keys are.

“…their faith descends from a society without literacy…”

What does this mean? Arabic writing developed in Muhammed’s era, and the Koran was written soon after his death. But you’re saying the entire society was illiterate? From what I’ve seen, most scholars think that the Muslim belief that Mohammed was illiterate was itself just a myth, and that he could read and write. You believe this Muslim legend?

“It's also worth noting that Persian (Iranian) Islam is different from Arabic Islam.”

Yes. I know about Sunnis and Shiites. My coworker is familiar with Sunni religious beliefs as well as modern day Sunni attitudes.

DocJim:
I just had a discussion with my coworker. Here is my paraphrase of it. Any errors are my own.
The quotes you present relate to a period when Mohammed and his followers were being persecuted in Mecca by their govenor and were eventually forced to flee to Medina. Battles occurred during this period with their persecutors (who were unbelievers). Your quotes relate to these battles in this time period and do not teach Muslims to "slay" unbelievers everywhere for the rest of time. (She told me an easy way to see the context of the quote is to watch the movie "The Message" with Anthony Quinn, which she loved, and she says is very popular among Muslims). In my view, all the holy books are not the "devine word" of any God, and is merely the writing of humans. When a group is being persecuted and a war is in progress, and people write about slaying their opponent, it is not surprising or shocking to me.
In general, the Koran consistently teaches that Islam is not to be forced, and this is still the attitude today. She did say that during the war in Mohammed's time the spreading of Islam was talked about, and she is not sure about the contradiction. She needs to consult her family on that one. As for the present, the teaching in Iran and Arab countries is to not force Islam. In Iran, the Zartoshet (sp?) are not forced to convert, and are left alone.
Anyway, it all sounds pretty benign to me. I think Christians and Jews would be much easier to demonize through the Bible, if the power relationship in the world today necessitated that. If Muslims had all the power and were persecuting, murdering, and taking the lands of Christians and Jews, and the Christians and Jews decided to fight back, Muslims would have a field day with the Bible in providing quotes to demonize the "terrorist" Christian and Jews. In comparison, your quotes and the Koran in general are soothing lullabies.

Keemo belched out

Little more to your comment than you stated above. Gun ownership is already our privilege; no floating required "second amendment"...

Exactly but what you FORGOT to read was the 10 or so posting about how owning guns and students fully armed would have prevented the shootings. That to me was using the horrific acts at VT for political purposes. Maybe you have a problem with reading time and date stamps, maybe you should spend more time learning how to use a clock and reading posts instead of listening to the idiots who you claim are your sources for your information.

Its no wonder your posts are getting incredibly more stupid. You are grasping for straws, you blame everyone except for those responsible. I am glad you find yourself in the minority again. You may be in the majority here, but in the real world of real Americans you are just another hot air right wing windbag like your bud Rush.

For someone like those who quote calling liberals godless is about as low and dumb as you can get. You following their lead shows that you are just as low.

"Please tell me the Bible version, along with Chapter and verse, of what you are talking about. I am looking at the King James Version. Are you talking about this in Leviticus?"

I just told you where it was -- each command that specified death as a penalty for things that are not normally worthy of death includes an explanation -- something along the lines of "so that you may drive the evil out of the land". It's right there, in the immediate context, not miles away (where you seem to be looking).

Of course, I have to add -- those punishments are simply shocking to any reasonable Jew or Christian. Anyone who didn't find them a challenge would be a real concern to me. I'm not defending them here on any merits, or claiming anything else about their source. My point is only that the commands contain their own relativizing clause (unlike most of the moral laws and many of the ceremonial laws), and the earliest historical records we have (whether included in our Bible or not) show that the Jews recognised them as such.

Compare this to the Islamic scriptures and traditions. Their laws almost never contain relativizing clauses (and rarely even explanations). Their history from the earliest records shows that they've taken those clauses to be absolutes tempered only by the allowance that once we submit to Islam we can live (but either convert or pay a tax and live as though you've converted). Some moderns have indeed tried to change that, and more power to 'em; we depend on them developing Enlightenment thinking.

I said: "their faith descends from a society without literacy"

You replied: "What does this mean?"

I failed to express it clearly. I was trying to communicate that the Islamic scriptures were not transmitted in writing, because most of the people who needed them were not literate. They were passed on by memorization and recitation. This is generally agreed to be the major reason why the Koran is not ordered by date (it's actually sorted by chapter length), except of course among the Moslems who believe that the Koran is not written by man, but dictated verbatim by God based on His eternal copy of the Koran.

Your friend's story about the context of the command is nice, and I hope many people believe it, but it's not supported by evidence; it's just a story. It's actually contradicted by some of the testimony in places such as the Hadith (although, of course, such contradiction isn't disproof, it still counts as evidence against). Mohammed continued giving and acting on such commands for a long time, and Islam is notable for its military expansion.

I said: “It's also worth noting that Persian (Iranian) Islam is different from Arabic Islam.”

You responded: "Yes. I know about Sunnis and Shiites."

Let me stop you right here. I said "Persian" and "Arabic", not Sunni and Shi'a. There's a big gap between Persian and Arabic Islam, almost as big as the gap between Sunni and Shi'a. Perhaps bigger, since the culture is so different.

wtanksleyjr :
“ It's right there, in the immediate context, not miles away (where you seem to be looking).”

Here’s where it says to kill homosexuals:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

I don’t see any qualifying statements there. Do you? Where is the “relativizing” clause??

Does the part about not having blood in your food not have this mystery "relativizing" clause? Is that why that law must be followed by Jews? Can you please show me exactly where to find this mysterious "relativizing" clause?

“There's a big gap between Persian and Arabic Islam, almost as big as the gap between Sunni and Shi'a.”
I showed this sentence to my coworker. She doesn’t know what you are talking about. She doesn’t know about any differences in Islam other than the Sunni/Shiite difference. Maybe you can teach her something about her religion.

Sorry for missing your post -- I had a busy long weekend. Your response deserves to be heard more than mine, though; I made an unpleasant error, and have to apologize. I was wrong to say that the relativizing statement was directly alongside those commands; I confused them with some other commands -- which I'm kinda confused about now.

But even these harsh commands are relativized (as you accurately quoted, "that the land... may not vomit you out", or earlier in Lev 20:3 "...because he has defiled my sanctuary..."), as were the horrifying and specific instructions to kill *all* the people of certain cities. As far back as we have written records Jewish teachers have been debating the exact application of those commands, showing that even before the Enlightenment even the ancient scriptures contained enough "flex" that (even) extreme literalists could justify reading those commands as extremely specific applications to a different case. Some of the commands were overridden in the same book they were given (for example, the command to bring all hunted meat to the tabernacle to be killed, which was modified in order to allow the tribes to spread out through the land).

The foundation for questioning was already there.

"If so, are you saying that now that the land has been cleansed from evil, followers are now free to pick and choose which laws to follow?"

Almost. I'm saying that they were required to _interpret_ the law, from the beginning, and their writings, biblical and extrabiblical, understood that to be the case. Consider all the psalms exclaiming the author's meditating on the law, the precepts, the testimonies, and explaining how those writings helped the author see into the heart of God...

And yes, this DOES imply that someone could claim -- for example -- that the prohibition on murder or incest or eating blood or shaving the corners of one's beard wasn't absolute. Obviously, that's a danger (to one degree or another); but it's a danger that each generation must face anyhow, as people are always free to decide that the law need not be regarded _at all_. I can't particularly explain why some prohibitions were kept verbatim, except that they served as portable ways to distinguish the people from their neighbors even while they were in captivity (certainly an example of their original stated intent).

"I showed this sentence to my coworker. She doesn’t know what you are talking about. She doesn’t know about any differences in Islam other than the Sunni/Shiite difference. Maybe you can teach her something about her religion."

Interesting; perhaps I can. Islam, much like nationalized Christianity, has a branch for each country it enters. There's even a distinct branch in America (Nation of Islam). Although none of these national branches approaches the age and severity of the Sunni/Shi'a split, they serve as the foundation for cultural splits which can be even greater impediments to union. The Persian/Arab split is probably the oldest one still existing, and certainly the strongest, since it was reinforced by the Persian occupation of many Arabic lands.

In specific: The Persians tend to have a less strict cultural interpretation of Islam; there's a lot more elbow room for unbelievers in their general interpretation of dhimmi, and they themselves tend away from the 'Islamist' view of history (although not perfectly, as witness their current leaders). The fact that your coworker has only one family member who's memorized the entire Koran is instructive; in Arabic countries, the madrassa teach all their students (which are, generally, less poor and sons of the imams; funding has to come from somewhere) to learn the Koran by heart.

And just a BTW... In addition to the Shi'a/Sunni split (which is fundamental, since it applies to the source of authority), there are other total doctrinal splits, as for example the Sufi, which your coworker should have known about.