Tragedy at VA-Tech

[rollhead]

WASHINGTON (April 17) -- The Virginia Tech student identified as the assailant in Monday's deadly gun rampage was a South Korean immigrant who had been in the United States since 1992 and who held a green card signifying his status as a legal permanent U.S. resident, federal officials said Tuesday.

Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old English major, was listed with a home address in Centreville, Va, a suburb of Washington, D.C., not far from Dulles International Airport.

Immigration records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security show that Cho was born in South Korea on Jan. 18, 1984 and entered the United States through Detroit on Sept. 2, 1992. He had last renewed his green card on Oct. 27, 2003.

University officials said he lived in a dormitory on the Virginia Tech campus, but could shed no light on a motive for the shooting spree that left 33 dead. "He was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," said Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker.

Cho was found with a backpack containing a receipt for a Glock 9mm pistol that he had bought in March. Ballistics tests by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showed that one gun was used in Monday's two separate campus attacks that were two hours apart. Cho's fingerprints were found on the two handguns used in both shootings, said two law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information had not been announced. The serial numbers on the two weapons had been filed off, the officials said.

As a permanent legal resident of the United States, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges, a federal immigration official said.

[Gentle Giant]

He then shot her three times in front of the whole class, before turning the gun on himself.

They always get that shit in the wrong order. If they shot themselves first, they'd save a lot of people a lot of misery, and then the poor folks at Virginia Tech wouldn't have the likes of Matt Lauer on their doorstep.

[Surfer]

I know.

[Clay Fink]

From: http://mediamatters.org/items/200704170001

Echoing Malkin's blog, Gibson and Napolitano lamented VA Tech ban on handguns

In the wake of a deadly shooting rampage that killed over 30 people on the campus of Virginia Tech University, host John Gibson asked on the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Big Story: "So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?" Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano replied: "No," adding, "Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids."

Napolitano and Gibson's comments echo those of right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, who, citing an op-ed written by a Virginia Tech spokesperson, noted on her weblog that the university prohibits handguns. She then quoted a weblog post from "Andrew's Dad," who wrote: "Just imagine if students were armed. We no longer need to imag[in]e what will happen when they are not armed." Malkin also quoted an email from "[r]eader Kevin" who claimed: "Imagine if sensible CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] laws allowed people to defend themselves, this tragedy could have been avoided."

From the April 16 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Judge Napolitano is also here with us. Judge has been looking into the law. They're -- people in Virginia have carry permits.

NAPOLITANO: Virginia is one the easiest states in the Union for anyone without a felony conviction, who's over the age of 21, and was a permanent resident of the state, to get a license to own and carry a concealed weapon. Meaning, you have it under your jacket, under your garment -- no one knows you have it.

GIBSON: So, theoretically, in this lecture hall where all 31 were killed, there could have been someone with a carry permit carrying their gun to shoot the shooter?

NAPOLITANO: No, because the same people that just dropped the ball, as Bo just described, that allowed 32 additional people to die, also said: "Virginia lets you carry a gun at a gas station or a bank or a stadium, but not on a college campus, where you may protect kids." So nobody has guns there except the college campus police. The professors --

GIBSON: And the criminal.

NAPOLITANO: And the criminal. Professors don't have guns, and the students don't have guns, even though they could lawfully carry them as soon as they get off campus.

—B.A

[jesus marion joseph]

Not so sure I'd be in a hurry to attend a college where everybody's packing.

[groover]

I know the on-campus experience is valuable, but I predict an uptick in distance learning.

[Al in NYC]

Isn't the modern day serial killer mostly an American Phenomena? Also, does that make these weird, out of nowhere, spree killings also mostly an American thing?

Well, it certainly has happened in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89c...nique_massacre

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

In the UK:

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

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

In Australia:

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

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

Maybe it's a disorder of the English speaking world?

Oh, but one of those Canadian ones was at a French-speaking university, and the Virginia Tech shootings seem to have been committed by a Korean. So maybe it's just some sort of ugly human thing...

[Dan G]

Not so sure I'd be in a hurry to attend a college where everybody's packing.

No, with the stress levels of both students and faculty, I'm not sure who I'd be more afraid of most days. But it would make grade appeals more interesting - whoever is the fastest draw wins.

Surfer - thanks for mentioning the Arizona shooting. I had somehow forgot about that, even though I had met one of the victims about 6 months earlier at a conference.

[Sandi22]

Legitimate uses for certain guns, in certain situations, by certain people, yes. Automatic weapons - noone can justify. Handguns...I don't see a purpose either. Any gun in a major city.

Farmers, people living in rural areas, etc who need them for protection from wildlife, then a single shot or semi-automatic rifle should be sufficient. I grew up in a rural forested area of Ontario, where animals were more common than people, my nearest neighbour was about 10 miles away but there were wolves, bears, foxes, etc all around. My parents still live there, though it is somewhat more populated, and only twice in the 85 years my father has lived there did he shoot something that might have been a threat. Neither time did he need to though - there were other just as safe actions.

Sandi22 argues for the need for ranchers to have handguns. Canadian ranchers/foresters/trappers/etc seems to have survived with rifles. About the only thing someone can do with a handgun that they can't do with a rifle is conceal it.

No, you've missed my point. When out working on a ranch and carrying rail road ties, buckets, digging post holes, digging ditches, cleaning out irrigation ditches with a shovel, doing any number of chores, carrying a rifle isn't practical.

When you're walking and carrying any number of things, for yards and yards; when you're too far away from your pickup or flat bed truck, a pistol is the wiser choice. We've never shot anthing either, not with our pistols, but have shot warning shots, and this from our front porch which was to back off humans and these same prowlers shot and killed a man and his wife we knew, and their little tiny little dog as well, shooting the man 36 times. So this is one time having guns saved us.

About Maynard. We had known him from California. He had moved up to Central Oregon about a year or so before us. He had a Western Store, and a big ranch, part of which bordered BLM land. He had need for a gun where he lived and because of his other business which required a lot of traveling and requiring him to carry large amounts of cash.

On day when he wasn't wearing his pistol when out clearing his ditch of ice so irrigation water could full his ponds, etc., his elderly neighbor, thinking he was stealing his water, hit him with a shovel, hitting him right in the face with it. He wore his pistol after that, saying had he been wearing it at that time, he doesn't think the man would have done it, and he couldn't let it happen again, he's lucky he wasn't severely injured or killed, He had a hard time making it to his pickup and a hard time making it back to his house. He was a mess.

One time, he had what's called a dummy foal, and had to shoot it. He couldn't bear to do it, but he did shoot it and used his pistol to do it.

Another time we were living at the beach and our daughter was brand new. The back of our house butted right up to Loma Drive, a street with the backs of the houses from Monterey Blvd were facing the front of many of the houses on Loma, so it was almost like an alley and not heavily traveled. Rich had to go to town as our washer went out so he ran down to the laundry mat to do our laundry, and I was sitting on the edge of our bed and looking over saw our door nob turning, it was the door into our daughters bedroom. Someone was trying to get in. We had Cafe curtains in part of the back rooms so whomever it was could see in our house and had probably seen Rich leave, he could see we were alone. I got out the 38, loaded it and sat there with it, I had pulled the hammer back to put the bullets into the chamber, and it froze up. There I sat with a gun with the hammer pulled back, no way to get the bullets out and the door nob kept turning, why he kept turning it, I don't know. We had just moved in, and didn't have our telephone in yet, so I was in a terrible fix. I sat there for an hour or longer afraid to let go of the hammer, afraid it would eventually release itself and send a bullet flying around our house. He evidently ended up seeing me with the gun and had left. He was always prowling around and the neighbors kept calling the police, so they came and talked to me to see if there were any reasons to believe those women, them knowing me, and knowing I wouldn't make up such things, they started patrolling our area, however, we still had problems with him. Rich chased him down the sandlot hill more than once. His trying to get in our house, knowing full well we were there, that was worrisome. I know him seeing our gun stopped him. I could go on and on about dangerous people. I know a lot of people say they had rather die than shoot another human being. I don't feel that way. I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, but torture and beatings, stabbings etc. I don't want my family or myself to be anyones victim.

[Dan G]

No, you've missed my point. When out working on a ranch and carrying rail road ties, buckets, digging post holes, digging ditches, cleaning out irrigation ditches with a shovel, doing any number of chores, carrying a rifle isn't practical.

When you're walking and carrying any number of things, for yards and yards; when you're too far away from your pickup or flat bed truck, a pistol is the wiser choice.

No, I didn't miss your point. I just said I don't agree with it. I don't see how the situation wherever you are can be so different from Canada, where handguns are illegal and not carried by people working doing all those same things you mention. We don't get eaten by bears on a regular basis. There's these things called straps that let you carry a rifle on your back...

I've encountered coyotes on a regular basis - I have urban coyotes roaming my neighbourhood even now, in a city of 1 million people; I've been in rock throwing distance of foxes frequently, wolves and bears occassionally (bears scare me!) and a mountain lion once while hiking in the Rockies (scared me even more!!!), but I've never had the need to shoot one of them.

On day when he wasn't wearing his pistol when out clearing his ditch of ice so irrigation water could full his ponds, etc., his elderly neighbor, thinking he was stealing his water, hit him with a shovel, hitting him right in the face with it. He wore his pistol after that, saying had he been wearing it at that time, he doesn't think the man would have done it...

No, more likely the neighbour would have just gone home, got his own gun, and shot your friend.

One time, he had what's called a dummy foal, and had to shoot it. He couldn't bear to do it, but he did shoot it and used his pistol to do it.

And why wouldn't a rifle work for that?

I could go on and on about dangerous people. I know a lot of people say they had rather die than shoot another human being. I don't feel that way. I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, but torture and beatings, stabbings etc. I don't want my family or myself to be anyones victim.

I can't imagine how anyone could be so worried about other people harming them that they feel the need to arm themselves. That kind of paranaoia is how people end up shooting their family members, neighbours, etc. Or getting shot themselves, because if someone is going to break into your home and they know you are armed, they'll probably be armed too. And more willing to shoot than you are.

[patricia]

I agree with Dan, not surprisingly. Having a gun certainly does not assure one's safety. In fact, having one shifts one's coping skills to think of using a gun rather than other methods of calming down a stressful situation.
I'm thinking of domestic disputes, neighbourly differences and arguments that end in shootings, when they could have ended with just sleeping it off.
Interestingly I think, more people have their guns stolen and used in felonies than ever have to use that same gun to defend their families, according to a policeman friend of mine.

I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons of the right to have guns or to use guns.
Some people shouldn't even consider having a gun anywhere near them.
I grew up with them and was taught how dangerous they are at the same time as I was taught about the dangers of other useful things.
I own a hunting rifle and a target pistol both of which I was taught to use by my late father.
He taught my brothers and me respect for firearms and that they are not a substitute for diplomacy and genuine human interaction, nor are they toys.
Using guns irresponsibly is truly tragic and should never happen.
I think that when a dispute arises, having a gun in the equation is often more of a barrier to relating to each other and solving the problem than the means to solving it.
My opinion of course.

[Scott Dolan]

And why wouldn't a rifle work for that?

What the hell is the difference?!

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Oh, but one of those Canadian ones was at a French-speaking university, and the Virginia Tech shootings seem to have been committed by a Korean. So maybe it's just some sort of ugly human thing...

Within the last year, they prosecuted the worst serial killer ever in Russia (or maybe the Ukraine), body count in triple figures.

[patricia]

Within the last year, they prosecuted the worst serial killer ever in Russia (or maybe the Ukraine), body count in triple figures.

Are you referring to Alexander Pichuzhkin who was convicted in 2006 for 61 murders? Apparently he was attempting to exceed the record of Chikatilo who killed 64 young girls and women in the eighties and was executed.

Which makes me quite concerned that by repeating that this latest mass murder is the worst of it's kind in U.S. history may push some madman into attempting to break the record.
Sounds crazy?? You bet it is. But no more crazy than that somebody would kill over thirty people yesterday at a university campus in Virginia.

[Sandi22]

What the hell is the difference?!

The power; the load; often times a pistol isn't as powerful as a rifle, the need to be loaded for bear isn't usually needed. The danger of a bullet traveling too far, having an errant bullet kill someone, is more of a possibility with a rifle.

We have a coyote trail through our property and we've never shot any of them nor do we trap them. They keep us awake at night pretty consistently, and we've never even attempted to shoot them, but there have been times when we've been really tired when we'll shot off the shotgun to get them to leave and stop their infernal howling. We don't even shoot at them when they are out and around during the day, instead it's fun to watch them hunt. They drive us crazy at times, and they've killed some of our animals, but we've not gone after them for it.

We've had guns for years. We've had friends walk in without knocking, had people at our front door at 11:30 at night asking directions, and we've never shot anyone. Not even close.

We have badgers digging up our pasture at times. We've not attempted to trap or shoot them, nor the rock chucks which cause untold damage. We aren't even hunters. We don't go deer hunting. Never. We don't hunt for anything. But I do know that having guns's saved us, and more than once. I have no doubt.

[Sandi22]

No, I didn't miss your point. I just said I don't agree with it. I don't see how the situation wherever you are can be so different from Canada, where handguns are illegal and not carried by people working doing all those same things you mention. We don't get eaten by bears on a regular basis. There's these things called straps that let you carry a rifle on your back...

I've encountered coyotes on a regular basis - I have urban coyotes roaming my neighbourhood even now, in a city of 1 million people; I've been in rock throwing distance of foxes frequently, wolves and bears occassionally (bears scare me!) and a mountain lion once while hiking in the Rockies (scared me even more!!!), but I've never had the need to shoot one of them.


No, more likely the neighbour would have just gone home, got his own gun, and shot your friend.


And why wouldn't a rifle work for that?


I can't imagine how anyone could be so worried about other people harming them that they feel the need to arm themselves. That kind of paranaoia is how people end up shooting their family members, neighbours, etc. Or getting shot themselves, because if someone is going to break into your home and they know you are armed, they'll probably be armed too. And more willing to shoot than you are.

We had a bear on the rampage on our place, it's cub had been run over and killed, and it was roaring so loudly, it sounded like a diesel rig going though it's gears. Rich was in our lower barn getting sawdust out of the loft to put in a horses stall to do something about the mud, and that bear was standing on it's hind legs and clawing at the wooden 1x8's up above the cinderblock walls, so he made a beeline to the house. The bear came around for weeks, but we didn't try to kill it. She eventually left, but two years later she got into a dentist's yard and the police shot and killed her. Not everyone is gun happy and a lot of have to be concerned about the nut cases who would do us harm. It's not paranoia driving how we feel.

We have been exposed to so many murders that it's very strange. In two instances, they've killed people we've met. One was prowling our house out in the country in California. It was on a ranch and no one but the ranch owner lived within a mile of where we were. He walked by our bedroom window every night, him thinking all of the bedrooms were on the other side of the house, which they had been until the house had been enlarged. We could hear him on the sand on the walkway. We had one gun then the .38 We brought our daughter and our dog into our bedroom to sleep everynight, as her room was clear across the living room from ours; just to make sure she was safe. This man; shortly after we moved to another ranch, killed a boy we knew who had gone to an album signing party just down the road from our house, he blew his head off with a shotgun and then raped the girls. We're lucky he didn't attempt to get in our house. Several years later, I had a run in with Ted Bundy, it was nightmarish. I kept our gun handy after that. There have been about 13 murders we have had brushes with, some at our own homes.

We have two guns we've purchased because of prowlers, and say what you will, I'm glad to have them, and I've never even come close to using them unwisely, even when we've had prowlers on our property trying to open our doors. If they do get in our house, then that will be a different story.

[Dan G]

What the hell is the difference?!

It wouldn't make a difference to whatever was being shot. I'm arguing that there is no need for handguns.

Long barrelled weapons are generally harder to conceal. Add to that that most of them are going to be single shot or semi-automatic, therefore harder to just start firing off multiple rounds. They are also more accurate, so there is a better chance of hitting the intended target.

People, or at least untrained ones, with automatic weapons, whether handguns or longer barrels, have a tendency to just shoot in the general direction of what they are aiming for and letting go with as many bullets as possible. Bystanders die that way. If someone had to actually load and aim...well, they could still kill someone but hopefully just who they wanted. Pretty hard to do a drive-by spraying with a single shot rifle.

As examples of above, about 2 years ago in Toronto, huge crowds of people out for Boxing Day sales, a couple of moron street gang assholes start firing at one another in a crowd. Teenage girl about 16 catches a stray bullet. Dead. No reason.

Last year in Edmonton - trial is on right now - some sort of dispute in a club, later when one of the groups of people are walking home, the others drive by, one idiot has a handgun decides to 'just scare them...' says he planned on hitting a hydro pole near them. From a couple of hundred feet, he put one into the head of a young woman.

Most handguns aren't accurate enough to do the damage you want, but lethal enough to kill innocent bystanders.

[Dan G]

We have two guns we've purchased because of prowlers, and say what you will, I'm glad to have them, and I've never even come close to using them unwisely, even when we've had prowlers on our property trying to open our doors. If they do get in our house, then that will be a different story.

In a previous post, you say that you shoot off a shotgun at night to scare coyotes - how is that not unwise? What if there was a person out there, or someone's pet. Shooting a gun that isn't aimed at a specific target seems very dangerous.



And since you said say what you want...I will: I really thihnk you need counselling for your paranoia. Prowlers, whatever...in most places, that's just life. Not everyone you don't know is out to harm you. (and yes, I've had people creeping in my back yard, and yes, I've had friends murdered too...didn't see the need to pull a gun)

[Dan G]

The danger of a bullet traveling too far, having an errant bullet kill someone, is more of a possibility with a rifle.

Far less chance of there being an errant bullet.

[Scott Dolan]

How many tihngs that have been made illegal over the past one hundred+ years have disappeared, Dan?

[Al in NYC]

I can't imagine how anyone could be so worried about other people harming them that they feel the need to arm themselves.

I really don't want to get to far into this argument, because I'm mostly on your side. But this statement shows that you've most likely never lived in a large American city, and certainly not during the bad-old-days back in the '70s and '80s. I certainly felt worried enough to feel the need to arm myself many a time back home during those days, and I'm a very very peaceful guy.

[Sandi22]

In a previous post, you say that you shoot off a shotgun at night to scare coyotes - how is that not unwise? What if there was a person out there, or someone's pet. Shooting a gun that isn't aimed at a specific target seems very dangerous.



And since you said say what you want...I will: I really thihnk you need counselling for your paranoia. Prowlers, whatever...in most places, that's just life. Not everyone you don't know is out to harm you. (and yes, I've had people creeping in my back yard, and yes, I've had friends murdered too...didn't see the need to pull a gun)

So now you believe I'm paranoid? You're judge and jury?

We shot it at bales of straw, into an object not a living creature. We're always careful.

There's reality, and there's perceived threats looming all about. This hasn't been paranoia with us. Not when you have thrill murderers on your property. Trying to see if doors are open. It happens.

Have your door nob being turned 5 feet from your childs crib which she's sleeping in and tell me that's paranoia. I'd go through hell and high water to prevent my family from being harmed. If that's paranoia, then I don't know where you're coming from.

[Scott Dolan]

I really don't want to get to far into this argument, because I'm mostly on your side. But this statement shows that you've most likely never lived in a large American city, and certainly not during the bad-old-days back in the '70s and '80s. I certainly felt worried enough to feel the need to arm myself many a time back home during those days, and I'm a very very peaceful guy.

My wife once had to fire a broad that worked for her who was very unstable. Even told the hospital counselor that she wanted to kill my wife. We considered getting a gun at that point for about 2 seconds.

That combined with what Al has stated here are two prime examples of why one would want to arm themselves. It has nothing to do with paranoia, it has to do with self preservation.

[Dr Dave]

I say, GUNS FOR EVERYONE! When everyone is packing, everyone will be safe! Except, of course, for those who are too slow on the draw, or whose first instinct is not to discharge a weapon when confronted with someone they disagree with. But they were probably wimps and fatally indecisive and would have been offed sooner or later anyway. Screw 'em.

Better still: Guns for all the Supreme Court Justices! Disagree with my opinion, will ya? BLAM!

[Scott Dolan]

I say, GUNS FOR EVERYONE! When everyone is packing, everyone will be safe! Except, of course, for those who are too slow on the draw, or whose first instinct is not to discharge a weapon when confronted with someone they disagree with. But they were probably wimps and fatally indecisive and would have been offed sooner or later anyway. Screw 'em.

Better still: Guns for all the Supreme Court Justices! Disagree with my opinion, will ya? BLAM!

Ah yes, the flip side of "outlaw guns and only outlaws will own guns".

Nicely done, Finch.

[Dan G]

How many tihngs that have been made illegal over the past one hundred+ years have disappeared, Dan?

Probably none, because nobody actually tries. A government saying something is illegal won't work - it would actually takes people stopping supporting it.

Ever wonder why there are a hell of a lot more handguns in the US than in other countries?

[claude]

But they were probably wimps and fatally indecisive and would have been offed sooner or later anyway. Screw 'em.

Natural selection at it's best, Darwin would be proud!!

[Scott Dolan]

Probably none, because nobody actually tries. A government saying something is illegal won't work - it would actually takes people stopping supporting it.

Ever wonder why there are a hell of a lot more handguns in the US than in other countries?

No, I don't.

So can we admit your Utopian dream will not work as long as humans are in charge and move on?

[Clay Fink]

I haven't held a gun in my hand since Gary and I were herding sheep Wyoming many summers ago.

[Pedantic Wretch]

So can we admit your Utopian dream will not work as long as humans are in charge and move on?

There is a difference between a utopian dream and advocating making gun purchase more difficult. It wouldn't eliminate incidents such as this, but the total number of shootings would decrease.