Click here to view/purchase all Roger L. Simon novels.

« Perestroika's gone - Are we surprised?

April 17, 2007: Cho Seung-hui's "disturbing note"

The question of the hour is the contents of Cho Seung-hui's "disturbing note." Will this give us some clue to the motivation of the suspect in yesterday's unspeakable carnage at Virginia Tech? Or will it just be a window into the mind of a lunatic? Or both?

This is an event about which I am unable to speculate. It dumbfounds.

But I will say this: given the world population clock is currently at 6,589,371,676, it is almost miraculous that there aren't more people like this. The likes of Cho Seung-hui are, thankfully, rare indeed.

UOPDATE: An article in the Chicago Trib is very interesting...

The note included a rambling list of grievances, according to sources. They said Cho also died with the words "Ismail Ax" in red ink on the inside of one of his arms.

More to come, I'm sure. (Early report that the suspect was a recent immigrant are evidently wrong. He also had a sister at Princeton.)

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I heard on the news, concerning Cho Seung-hui's "disturbing note", the phrase remarked by a reporter "Ismael's Ax" and something about the note or a tattoo?

I've been trying to find out more about it online. I only get so far in Google, info about Ismael Dalramy and Sierra Leone. Here is a line, "Like many others whose arms were amputated by the drugged teen-age rebels of the Revolutionary United Front, Ismael Dalramy pleaded with his captors to kill him when he saw the fate that awaited him in 1996. But like the others in the small West African nation of Sierra Leone, his desperate plea was ignored-and the blade of a crudely made ax was slammed through the bones of his arm."

Anyone hear more about the note? Maybe more than just a lover's quarrel, there may be a political agenda behind the 23 year old South Korean's actions? He did after all come from a part of the world much different than ours here in America, so that is something else to consider concerning his profile. Just a thought as I watch the news.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 9:10 AM

I also came upon some interesting reading concerning the key words, "Ismail" and "ax" as search words:

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ibrahim.htm

It concerns the Islamic tradition of the Prophet Ibrahim, the father of the Prophets, and it mentions one story about him using an ax to destroy false idols, afterwards wearing it around his neck.

His son is Ismail, whom with his father, was ordered by Allah to build a muslim temple for muslims to worship.

"Ismail's Ax?" Maybe the tool used to bring down false idols? The note mentions, "charlatans", the fake or false persons, perhaps this kid did have an agenda; a hatred for capatalism, christianity, idolatry, sexual promescuity, etc. (I apologize in advance for my bad grammar.)

Does anyone know about the family religion? What kind of religious upbringing he had?

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 9:31 AM

Well, you can also follow that line of inquiry down and think of Ismail (Ishmael) son of Ibrahim (Abraham) and all that followed. But in the end it will always be a bit like the final scene of Blowup. You go back to find the who and the why that you think you saw and it just isn't there.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at April 17, 2007 9:36 AM

Taking that a step further: I think it is interesting to see that where we used to look for answers to mysteries in auguries and entrails and signs from the heavens that now we consult the oracle of Google. And that is underscored by the persistence of the "I feel lucky" option on the home page. It would seem that, when Google tests to see what is working on Google home, people by a large measure always want that option to be kept even though most who want it kept never use it.

Indeed, when I used it with "Ismail Ax" just now it lead me to:

Ismail Ax?
What on earth could that mean?

http://letthemenforceit.blogspot.com/2007/04/ismail-ax.html

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at April 17, 2007 9:45 AM

South Korea is a very democratic nation. In fact they stay more true to Democratic ideology than the United States does. The person who made that post about Cho coming from a country vastly different than the united staes obviously doesn't know the difference between NORTH korea and SOUTH Korea. And by the way, the majority of South Koreans are Christian and or Buddhist.

Posted by: jaystar at April 17, 2007 9:45 AM

"He did after all come from a part of the world much different than ours here in America."

Boli_FX, thats so damn ignorant. Did you even bother to read? He came to the US when he was 8 years old. And since you so cleverly pointed out 8 year olds are notorious for spreading political propoganda...

bleh...

Posted by: fl1ckmasterflex at April 17, 2007 9:51 AM

Well, at least Virginia has a well-regulated militia.

I recognize the political futility and general ineffectivness of gun control in a country whose constitution includes an ambiguous, 220-year old amendment that many people believe enshrines the right of any individual -- no matter how mentally ill they may be -- to bear "arms". I've just never been able to understand why the anti-gun control crowd is willing to countenance the banning of automatic weapons, or, say, Katyusha & Qassam Rockets, but is unwilling to accept requiring people to pass a psychological screening before they buy their arms.

Posted by: markus at April 17, 2007 9:52 AM

It is more likely that the shooter was developing serious mental illness - probably schizophrenia (which often appears around his age). "Disturbing writings" in his creative English class, and a "rambling note" with varying tenses supports that.

Of course, such a person is more susceptible to political/ideological currents - especially those supporting conspiracy theories, etc.

Naturally, the political repercussions will be calls to ban those evil semiautomatic weapons or large magazines. Within hours of the incident, ABC had a misleading article (not editorial) decrying the ending of the ban on such weapons (a ban never really existed in a practical sense) by the Republican congress.

Expect this to raise the gun-rights issue yet once again. The previous "ban", much celebrated by the press and Democrats, did nothing that would have in any way prevented this event, but it did inconvenience many of us by putting meaningless cosmetic restrictions on weapons and requiring 10 round maximum magazines (meaning you only had to carry more mags, not kill fewer people, if you were a deranged shooter - but exempting already existing weapons, of which there were many millions).

Since VATech was (by law) a "gun free" zone, once again only the killer was armed. While it is little reported, the previous college killing spree in the US was stopped by a student who ran to his car and retrieved a weapon. If the heroic professor who died barring the door to his classroom had been armed, he might have stopped the spree *and* lived.

Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools ) at April 17, 2007 9:57 AM

"If the heroic professor who died barring the door to his classroom had been armed, he might have stopped the spree *and* lived."

Amen to that. The liberal idiots will use this as a cudgel to bash Republicans and gun rights advocates but it's painfully obvious that no gun control measure will ever stop the criminal and sociopatic element from aquiring weapons. But they will ensure law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

Why doesn't it suprise me that the left's ideal state is one where the government is armed but the citizenry is not?

Posted by: Paul at April 17, 2007 10:09 AM

What about having taser stations similar to a fire extinquisher/alarm behind glass? That is, 'break glass in case of emergency'.

That way, you don't have to arm individuals, but an unarmed crowd has another recourse beyond cowering behind desks available. It has the additional advantage of being nonlethal.

The legal argument is that if you want to override your states CCW laws for your campus/hospital/government office, then you are legally responsible to provide a means of non-lethal resistance to the population that makes themselve vulnerable in your domain.

You could have significant penalties to deter pranksters who might decide to play with the taser.

BTW - Apparently one teacher who blocked a door with his body paid the price.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070417vtech-shootings,1,176236.story?page=2&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Posted by: jdwill at April 17, 2007 10:32 AM

I read that his parents live in Fairfax County, VA. As a Korean-American adoptee with biological relatives who moved there, I can say based on my personal experience that the Korean-American community in Fairfax is not well integrated. The parts of it that I saw were mainly made up of successful Korean businessmen who bought a home in America so that their children could go to school here to avoid the mandatory conscription that exists in Korea after high school. The parents are rarely at home--often traveling on business and spending much of their
time back in Korea, leaving the kids mostly unsupervised. The kids in the area go through high school extremely isolated to their own Asian clique and loners outside of it.

If (and this is pure speculation) the VT killer was one of these kids, this is more indicative of parenting decisions made by an specific group of individuals, rather than a commentary on the nature of our two countries.

Posted by: aviazn at April 17, 2007 10:32 AM

WOW! It's great to see so many people like myself interested in seeking truth and openly discussing this. I'm glad.

Funny, however, how people love to throw words around so easily, and judge. This is exactly why already we can find hate sites/posts all over the net. This is the problem right here. Why do we feel the need to bring others down? to fight? to assert your authority over others? to kill? maybe it's a part of human nature we try to deny.

Jaystar said, "The person who made that post about Cho coming from a country vastly different than the united staes obviously doesn't know the difference between NORTH korea and SOUTH Korea."

and also, "Boli_FX, thats so damn ignorant. Did you even bother to read? He came to the US when he was 8 years old. And since you so cleverly pointed out 8 year olds are notorious for spreading political propoganda...bleh..." by fl1ckmasterflex.

Well guys, I came from another country at the age of 9, and guess what? My culture, my family, the world I came from, which is different than America, came along with me and my family. So, no i am not ignorant, I was expressing the fact that this young person came from a different culture, and therefore experienced a different world than most Americans. Secondly, I never said South Korea was not democratic, but instead that it is vastly different than America, and if you dont believe that, please get a passport/visa and travel - and in fact, educate yourself and experience a different world vastly different from ours here in the comfort of our MTV's, Walmarts and McDonald's. I love this country, but it is VASTLY different from many other countries, and until you travel outside of it, most Americans will never understand this (or that many countries hate/envy/dispise our democratic/capatalistic/comfortable way of living)

My intention was to open discussions about a young person so disturbed as he was, and what makes someone like this do what they do? Why the words "Ismail Ax" on his arm? Why the "disturbing note" talking about "charlatans" and the "rich" kids? this sounds to me like a political/ideological agenda.

Now, we're hearing a lot about his creative writing class, and how others found his writings disturbing. Anyone have more info about this? What he would write about?

Let's not focus on attacking each other, or trying to flex our intellectual muscle by putting each other down, and instead focus on finding out the facts, and learning more about why our society as a whole is rapidly changing more and more as we see these tragic events continuing to occur. Maybe we need to learn more about ourselves and each other, instead of attacking each other.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 10:46 AM

Markus, you can't legally buy a gun if you have a police record. This is the "test". Crude? Yes. But find something with better predictive power.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 10:47 AM

I've just never been able to understand why the anti-gun control crowd is willing to countenance the banning of automatic weapons, or, say, Katyusha & Qassam Rockets, but is unwilling to accept requiring people to pass a psychological screening before they buy their arms.

That's okay, Markus. Tech is legally a gun-free zone. Therefore this didn't even happen.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at April 17, 2007 10:56 AM

Buddy Larsen, also consider that the serial numbers on the guns were erased; which means this person would have taken any measure to get ahold of guns, not necessarily through legal methods. Therefore, even if he would have been unable to buy a gun legally, he could have used other methods like stealing, buying stolen gun from someone else, or even purchasing under false identity. Unfortunately, if someone is determined to get a gun to kill, they will find a way, and it really is not that hard. (I dont know much about other states, but I live in Florida, and it is VERY easy here to get a gun here).

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 11:01 AM

I suspect that anything we may learn regarding this individual's motivation, through his note or otherwise, will ultimately prove inadequate, inconclusive, and unsatisfying.

Posted by: TheRealSwede at April 17, 2007 11:04 AM

Buddy -- lots of psychotic individuals do not have criminal records. I support laws that require for all gun owners what many states require for concealed weapon permits, including hopefully mental health screenings. Nothing that a law-abiding, non-violent citizen wanting to defend herself or her family wouldn't be able to easily pass.

Posted by: markus at April 17, 2007 11:22 AM

Ok, so here we go. We've got some people talking about politcal agendas, others talking about ignorant liberals, and others claiming that maybe there are Islamic ties to all of this. And of course, many of us are insulting each other along the way. How nice ;-)

I'm glad so many of you enjoy playing detective with just a few list of facts that we have about the deceased. Well, I am no detective. But I like to think that I have enough common sense to know that simplest explanation is usually the right one.

And from the looks of it, the VTkiller was another pissed-off, lonely kid who thought he had no other options. This has nothing to do with foreign policy, or borders, or Islamic motivations. I don't even think it has anything to do with differences of cultures. I moved to this country at at the age of four and my sister was eight. And yeah, we came from a different country with a different culture, but after so many years in the states you begin to take on more of the American culture then you do your own. And I think this happens with most immigrants that come to this country at a young age. Obviously not all of them, but more than likely it happens with most of them.

After all, this kid knew enough about the American culture/way-of-life to finish high school with good enough grades to enroll in a good university. And he almost made it through an entire bachelor program. He was a senior, wasn't he? So I don't think it comes down to a clash of cultures or political/social agendas. This kid probably had very few friends and was really, really angry about something, and I don't think any of us can claim to know what that was.

Lastly, I know you NRA-types won't like it, but there is a problem with easy access to guns in this country. If I'm not mistaken I think Virginia has a law that you can buy one gun a month (don't quote me there, but it's something like that). I like the suggestion of having to pass a psychological test to own a gun. The reason I like this is because I know so many of you NRA-types would probably fail that test. It's not healthy to love a gun that much. I don't mean that as an insult, but seriously, you've got issues if you love guns that much.

The bottom line is that guns are dangerous, and you shouldn't be able to walk in to a Walmart and buy a gun and plenty of ammo with very few questions asked.

Posted by: jparodi625 at April 17, 2007 11:26 AM

Oh, it's doomed to be "inadequate, inconclusive, and unsatisfying" alright. As Roger points out, 6.5 billion people make an atmosphere, and an atmosphere must have extremes. These things are simply going to happen. That's not resignation, it's just fact. Unless we want to start weeding the gene garden. Is that the answer, markus?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 11:32 AM

Has VT ever published the text of the bomb threats from earlier this month, the ones now purportedly attributed to Cho? If the search of his room did indeed prove that he wrote those threats, then their content might shed more light on the full range of his motivations.

Posted by: ras at April 17, 2007 11:33 AM

jparodi625, you lead off decrying insulting posts, and a few sentences later are firing insults like a machine gun. But since you're having trouble holding aim, suggest you back up and learn more about "NRA types" and "gun love". Seriously. You have some cartoon notions, and the truth is always better for you in the long run.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 11:41 AM

jparodi625, why not play detective? Isnt that what we should do? Instead of only relying on what the media tells us? (Initially, they reported he was Chinese) People talk. They correct each other, AND the media. We inform each other. That's the point of the Net. Open communication; the mass conscience.

I agree we all make assumptions, but that's part of research and detective work; until you reach conclusive truth.

Finally, we have all been angry. I know people who are manic depressive, and yes they can be extreme. But to purchase guns, erase the serial numbers, kill 2 people, and then to kill others after locking the doors so they cannot escape? This isnt an angry kid. This isnt just an irrational person, or as reporters keep calling his "note", ramblings of a madman. He was an English major for crying out loud; not an idiot. This is a planned event with a motive, an agenda, even if not political, definitely he had a reason; ideological, psychological, religious, or whatever. I am more interested in figuring out the why, and as mentioned above, we may never find out, but it's worth the try to find out right? To learn?

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 11:45 AM

Buddy, I was happy that people were insulting each other's opinions. That what makes this forum entertaining. If you read closely, you'd notice that I wrote, "How nice."

Nice gun metaphor, by the way. Apparently you think I have trouble taking aim.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "cartoon notions."

I'd like to respond to your comment, but frankly I can't decipher any meaning from it. Nor can I tell what your opinion is.

And just so we're clear. NRA-types are idiots---BULLSEYE!! How's that for aim?

Posted by: jparodi625 at April 17, 2007 11:48 AM

markus, your 11:22 makes sense. It's the 'nose-under-the-tent' thing, tho. Once statist types start dictating all the things that we the people need psychological testing for, and then start designing and grading the tests, well, just remember how the field of psychiatry was used to declare millions of soviet citizens to be in need of incarceration in psychiatric hospitals. Look it up.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 11:48 AM

jparodi625, why do you think so?

We are so lucky, as Americans to have the right to bear arms, because other countries that make it illegal for citizens to own a gun, take power away from its citizens, and place it entirely with the government (and makes it easier to use fear and violence to control a nation).

I am not a gun advocate, but can you at least appreciate that some people fight to keep our rights to bear arms?

I do agree that some guns owners seem very unstable and radical, but as mentioned before, extremes are bound to happen.

By the way, finding entertainment in the insult, downfall, or attack on others does nothing for you as a person.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 11:56 AM

It always seems to me that those in favor of easy access to weapons are only familiar with addition, and not subtraction. Ironically, in South Korea, where this shooter was born, this crime wouldn't have occurred because individual ownership of guns is not allowed.

So you say the way to decrease the number of deaths would have been to increase the number of guns? Doesn't make any sense to me. The idea is to SUBTRACT the gun that did the killing, as has proven successful in other countries. ADDING more guns creates MORE shooting, not LESS.

It is just a fact. Countries with individual ownership of handguns have an exponentially larger number of homicides. No way to do the math differently.

Posted by: glrx2007 at April 17, 2007 11:56 AM

Markus, I'll grant (as did buddy) that your 11:22 is actually intelligible. But I don't buy the notion that it would actually work. Consider, for example, that it's illegal to buy marijuana. Now, I haven't smoked dope in probably 20 years, but I have no doubt whatsoever that I could obtain a joint within a day's effort, and a key in a week or so.

There are lots of illegally-held guns out there.

The notion that you could successfully make it impossible for a person entering their first psychotic episode to obtain guns is just not tenable.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at April 17, 2007 11:57 AM

So, jparodi625, you weren't being sarcastic with the 'how nice', but were rather, applauding frank discussion.

Okay, great. "NRA-types are idiots" is your lead-off argument? Jeez, that one will be tuff to counter. How 'bout "Sez you" ?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 12:00 PM

It always seems to me that those in favor of easy access to weapons are only familiar with addition, and not subtraction. Ironically, in South Korea, where this shooter was born, this crime wouldn't have occurred because individual ownership of guns is not allowed.

Funny you mention that.

That would be the largest spree killing in modern history. Where: South Korea.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at April 17, 2007 12:01 PM

jpariodi, NRA types are idiots, and sick because they love their guns?

My goodness, that IS a cartoonish stereotype. I'm one of the 4 million members, and granted, I'm not the sharpest porchlight on the block, but I'm certainly no idiot. And I don't love my guns any more than I love my computer or my SUV.

Do you even know any "NRA types"?

Posted by: Stace at April 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Not to beat this one into the ground, but here's 16 killed in Germany in 2002, and 17 or 18 (depending on who you count) in Scotland in 1996.

Actually, that's wrong: I do mean to beat it into the ground. I'm tired of idiots who think what they want to be true is what's really true.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at April 17, 2007 12:06 PM

Point One: making, or attempting to make, a psychiatric diagnosis (psychotic,whatever) implies we should be diagnosing and treating the Chos before or after they deliver on their insanity. That's an egregious misallocation of resources akin to doing psych profiles of all potential gun buyers. The yield is too effing low and what do you do with the false positives?
Should we do psych screens to detect possible pedophiles before they act out?

I prefer to designate such perps as evil. That ends the hand-wringing, and maybe impacts the annual production of thousands of psychologists, shrinks, psych. social workers aka therapists, grief counselors and assorted other well-paid but largely unproductive hand-wringers who work so hard to understand and help us understand.....nothing.

Point Two: Alcohol and cars are more easily purchased than guns, and kill and injure way way more folks/yr than guns. So be consistent in your rush to safety, Markus: Let's outlaw vehicles in NJ for Gov. Corzine.

Posted by: TomTom at April 17, 2007 12:06 PM

glrx2007,

The tradeoff is that in those nations where guns are banned the govts can and often do run off on periodic pogroms. The 2nd amendment is to give the people the power to discourage that. There will be, w/sufficient gun control (if that's even possible), fewer incidents but more people dead overall, cuz no can kill like a govt can kill.

Pop quiz: name the 10 biggest genocides in history: e.g. Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Tamerlane etc. How many of those were done w/a govt as the agent of slaughter? All of them, you say? Correct. Compare and contrast to the biggest genocide you can think of that did *not* involve a govt.

The irony, at least given the usual baskets of policy positions, is that the 2A arg is also the best arg I know against capital punishment. If we don't trust govt to the point that we keep a gun at hand, why would we want to encourage them to kill at all? Slippery slope, that one.

Posted by: ras at April 17, 2007 12:07 PM

Attacking the security problem via gun policies always ends in the same old stalemate. If areas, like schools, are legally 'gun free' then people will not be able to defend themselves against sociopaths who, by definition, do not care about such laws or any living people the laws are upheld to protect. Then again, allowing them enables individuals to utilize guns in situations that they were never intended for (People get pissed, people get ideas, and those people have been found to do a lot more *lethal* damage when they have guns- see Cook, 1981) thus potentially rising the overall homicide rate outside of these isolated incidences (which are, sadly, becoming less isolated in our society). Plus, what if in allowing students to carry guns via defense, we actually create an enviorment that perpetuates these types of massacres, or even creates new ones?? This is a relatively new phenomenon, we don't know why these happen and that is what we need to find out.

BUT...I think that the 'pro-guns' people have the right idea, just not the right means to an end. We need to empower students/citizens to feel like they can do something in these situations in the name of self-defense. The problem with THAT, is that our current policies of ZERO EVERYTHING probably wouldn't be to keen on implementing a workshop where students learn how to kick other students' asses. You people do realize that these insane student control policies- yeah,the things that are supposed to 'prevent' the very things we spend so much time worrying about- are the things that make kids go insane in the first place. Just look up Emilie Durkheim's notion of Anomie. If I have time I might post a sociological rant as to how people like this come to exist in this world...Or you can just read stuff on Social Control Theory on wikipedia.

Posted by: x-tine at April 17, 2007 12:07 PM

Charlie (Colorado), I agree whole-heartedly about the theory that if something is more readily available we are more apt to partake of it more often.

glrx2007, I understand where your coming from, but consider this: If the dead come back to life, wouldnt you be happy to know you have a gun to protect yourself? Just kidding. It's true that countries with individual ownership of handguns have an exponentially larger number of homicides, but that's statistics, obviously the inverse would be true in most cases.

We need to alter our gun control policies and laws, not try to take away a constitutional right that most Americans would die fighting before giving up-just not going to happen without a civil war.

Is the issue here really gun control/laws? Or a sick kid that killed many? He could have made a bomb you know? Its not that difficult in this cyber age to find out how unfortunately.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:08 PM

Most lethal school massacre in USA history:

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 12:16 PM

Several great points have been, but does anyone have any new insight into the world, life or mind of Cho Seung-chui? Any new information about the 2 victims before the mass shootings? Any confirmation of a "love traingle" as it was put by several reporters? (I love how one reporter will give an opinion, and others follow)

Any new info on the tatoo? Ismail Ax? The note?

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Well, Buddy, I guess blowing the f--- out of a school doesn't get the same 'massacre' title as going around and shooting people.

Posted by: x-tine at April 17, 2007 12:22 PM

Buddy, its true: shit happens, young people die, life is tragic. And tens of thousands of other people, probably, died tragic deaths of some sort yesterday as well. Still, correct me if I'm wrong: America has one of the highest gun death and gun injury rates in the world. I have no quick, easy answers, I just think it is a question worth pondering: why so much violence in America?

Tom Tom, good point about alcohol and cars. I believe in consequences and I would have no problem in taking away the right to consume alcoholic beverages for someone convicted of DUI and or any other crime under the influence of alcohol. Same goes for incompetent drivers.

Charlie -- thanks for the article on gun rampages in other countries. Its good to be reminded that it is not exclusively an American phenomenon.

Posted by: markus at April 17, 2007 12:22 PM

Right, x-tine, caught the euphemism. Wicked things, euphemisms.

Markus, take a different angle on it for a moment: find a tyrant or dictator in modern history who has not forbade the citizenry owning guns. And it ain't because of love of the value of individual life. Hitler collected the private guns soon after he took office. There are many other examples--including the current demoralizing fear that many Europeans by all evidence feel. Here, i just did a search for the pro-con arguments, and this site looks brief and fairly comprehensive, big-picture wise. I know it looks all jingo, but scan the content.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 12:33 PM

hi, just stumbled on this site through the bbc website.

I'm no expert on guns or even the legal process in the USA. I live in England, where the sale of all guns is very restricted.I think the person who was talking about different cultures is right, although we say the same and basically sound the same, even in the UK we are vastly different to the USA. yes, gun related killings occur over here, like the Hungerford and the Dunblane massacre, but these weren't by kids who were biting back at society or their peers, and they didnt go out and buy guns over the counter. I'm not trying to annoy anyone either,
I'm just trying to understand it as well.

Actually, if I lived in America, I would buy a gun to protect myself and my family, but that doesn't make it right.

The horrible truth is that nutters will always find a way, if it wasn't a gun it would have been something else, yes, maybe even a car or a knife, but, God, at least try and make it a bit more difficult for these idiots.

News guys all around the world will report on how they have found this that and the other in his room relating to different movements he seems to have followed etc etc.
Bottom line, it doesnt matter where he was from, what his religion, or political stance was, he did it because he was pissed off.

And because he had the means to do it.

Posted by: McFly at April 17, 2007 12:34 PM

"Most lethal school massacre in USA history:"

Buddy, now aren't you just regurgitating the media hype being sold to us for ratings? Just because more people died in Virginia, doesnt mean Columbine or any other school shooting was any worse or less; they are all tragic.

The point here is that a gun didnt do this. A sick person did, and I bet if he couldnt have gotten ahold of a gun, then he would have found another way to hurt others. That's the point.

I think we tend to disassociate or dihumanize the killer, and blame things like guns, because we are affraid to admit a human being is capable of such atrocity.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:34 PM

Since we're all speculating here based on very limnited information and extrapolating that to policy..

The gun issue is minor - the real issue is the breakdown in the family. I'll bet this kid had "attachment disorder". Basically when you are removed from your parents at a young age you don't connect to society and hence don't develop a conscience.

I'm further speculating he was an abandoned orphan and had a evidence of torturing animals.

We'll see...

Posted by: neuralnet at April 17, 2007 12:37 PM

Buddy -- "Markus, take a different angle on it for a moment: find a tyrant or dictator in modern history who has not forbade the citizenry owning guns."

As I noted previously, Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: markus at April 17, 2007 12:40 PM

McFly,

I met a woman last year in San Fransico who had been living in London but left because she claimed she felt unsafe, due to an epidemic of rape and assaults. From what I read and hear I'd be much more concerned for my safety in London than New York.

Posted by: Paul at April 17, 2007 12:42 PM

The worse school tragedy was in Michigan back in 1927 when a man named Kehoe blew up the local school, killing 45 and wounding 58. He was upset about property taxes. He killed his wife the day of the attack and he also blew up his car with himself in it at the scene after people had showed up at school. It was the first suicide by car bomb as well I think.

It would be nice if people let the families bury dead before they turned this into an attack on that 220 year old document, the Constitution, which markus apparently is so put out with.

Posted by: Terrye at April 17, 2007 12:42 PM

Brutal question: Assume a 2nd amendment in 30s Germany would've allowed the VT type mass-murders in about the number we endure --but would've also prevented the brutality of nazism (which created WWII). What's the pick? If this is a stupid, ignorant proposition --why?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 12:42 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html

Cho, a 23-year-old South Korean and resident alien, was an English major who lived at the university's Harper Hall, Flinchum said.

"He was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," said Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations.

Cho came to the United States in 1992, through Detroit, Michigan, a department of Homeland Security official said. He had lawful permanent residence, via his parents, and renewed his green card in October 2003, the official said.

His residence was listed as Centreville, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, D.C.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:43 PM

The attack I was referring to is the one Buddy linked to. The point being when some mentally unstable person decides to do a lot of damage, he finds a way.

I am not a member of the NRA, and I am tired of people assuming that anyone who owns a gun is a "type".

Posted by: Terrye at April 17, 2007 12:46 PM

read this article update:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-shooter18apr18,1,5242052.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

From the Los Angeles Times

Title: Gunman was both methodical and angry

By Erika Hayasaki and Richard A. Serrano
Times Staff Writers
Published April 17, 2007, 2:35 PM CDT

BLACKSBURG, Va. -- It was 5:30 Monday morning and Karan Grewal was finishing a break after a long night of cramming for his classes at Virginia Tech. As he left the bathroom at Harper Hall, his dormitory mate, Cho Sueng-Hui, wearing boxer shorts and a T-shirt, entered for his morning ritual of applying lotion, inserting his contact lenses and taking his medication.

"He was, like, normal," Grewal, a 21-year-old accounting major, said today, describing the ordinary start to what turned out to be an extraordinary day. cont......

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:47 PM

A reporter asked earlier today, "any signs that he may be troubled?" well...

According to school officials, Cho even had time to post a deadly warning on a school online forum.

"im going to kill people at vtech today," they said he wrote.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:49 PM

girx, in Switzerland, all military age males are required to keep a fully automatic rifle in the home. Switzerland has an extremely low murder rate. Perhaps we should adopt their policy. Actually, comparing countries with differing cultures and constitutions is like comparing apples to oranges. It's more useful to observe what happens within a country when the laws are changed.

For example, in the UK and Australia, the gun crime rate has actually increased since gun laws were made more strict, because, guess what, criminals don't obey the law. I really do NOT want to see the same thing happen here. In the US, history and statisitics show that there is no long term correlation between gun laws and crime rates. For example, Vermont, which has very loose gun laws, has a low crime rate, while D.C., which has the most restrictive laws, has one of the worst gun murder rates. Obviously, there are other factors at work here.

Anyway, back on the subject of school shootings. As they point out on Volokh.com, these school shootings are really quite rare statistically. Also, as Roger says, any large population will contain a tiny subset of highly disturbed individuals, and it appears that Mr Cho was an example of this.

All of which I try to keep in mind as I take my son to his "gun-free zone" school today. Not even the security guards are armed there, and it would be ridiculously easy for a suicidal killer to walk in there and a kill a bunch of kids, having an advance guarantee that absolutely no one present could oppose him. Schools serve up the kids and teachers on a platter with their victim disarmament policies. It's a wonder there aren't more attacks on these soft targets.

Posted by: Stace at April 17, 2007 12:51 PM

Stephanie Derry, a senior English major at Virginia Tech, was in a playwriting class with Cho taught by acclaimed professor Ed Falco this semester.

"His writing, the plays, were really morbid and grotesque," Derry said.

"I remember one of them very well. It was about a son who hated his stepfather. In the play the boy threw a chainsaw around, and hammers at him. But the play ended with the boy violently suffocating the father with a Rice Krispy treat," she said.

"When I got the call it was Cho who had done this, I started crying, bawling," Derry said. "I kept having to tell myself there is no way we could have known this was coming. I was just so frustrated that we saw all the signs, but never thought this could happen."

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 12:53 PM

From a post @ hotair.com:

You probably already know this, but in James Fennimore Cooper's story "The Prairie", the settler Ishmael Bush, who is attempting to escape from civilization, sets out across the prairie with two key tools, a gun and an axe. Each has a symbolic meaning. The axe -- which can either kill or provide shelter -- stands for both creation and destruction. Given that the VT killer was an English major, might this be the likely meaning of the words on his arm? Just my two cents.

Posted by: Henry Bowman at April 17, 2007 12:54 PM

Paul,

Yeah, you're right, it can be bad over here, as in many other places, I wasn't having a dig at America. Rapes and assaults are horrific acts, which, unfortunately frequently occur all around the world.
I was not even attempting to suggest UK is better than USA, and do not wish to trade crime statistics.
But, this guy didn't walk into his campus and start raping people over, say, a two year period did he?
He walked in the place with two guns and shot two people. Then, a few hours later he went and killed more.

Posted by: McFly at April 17, 2007 12:57 PM

Buddy -- you really think the 2nd amendment would have prevented the rise of Nazism? Go rent Triumph of the Will. Or read Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. Hitler was a popular leader. Give every Jew stuck in Germany a rifle, and they would have been met with two antisemites with better ones.

Posted by: markus at April 17, 2007 1:03 PM

Boli_FX, point taken, re the contest-like hyping of 'most ever' headlines.

Just trying to agree with others that homicidal maniacs will find a way. Granted that guns are very efficient machines (that's what most folks appreciate, the mechanical design, the ballistics challenge of hitting a target, the outdoors, and don't forget that venison brisket), so yes it sux badly when the homicidal maniac has the perfect tool at hand.

But, even assuming that (with hundreds of millions of practically indestructable units already out there) the maniac could by extraordinary measures be kept away from a gun, what then are likely to be the full, total historical consequences of those "extraordinary measures"?

There are real-world fact ratios here, such as cost/benefit and risk/reward.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 1:03 PM

Thanks for the post Henry, seems more likely theory than my random Google searches. ;)

McFly: I'd be interested in your input as to how the world, outside of the US, in your case London, views this current tragedy in America? Just curious.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 1:07 PM

markus, as long as we're grandly over-simplifying, how 'bout "if ya can't lick 'em, join 'em"?

Given sixty million killed, wouldn't it have been better to have had ordinary 30s Germans in better position to avoid that motto of resignation?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 1:13 PM

Buddy,

"Just trying to agree with others that homicidal maniacs will find a way."

We all love our countries. I love America, and yes we have crime, but I wouldnt give up my right to protect myself. (as pointed out earlier, a criminal doesnt attain guns through mainstream process)I would hate to have someone break into my home with a gun or rifle, where my family and I reside, and for me not to be able to fight back fairly. (would you want to be in a gun fight with a knife or bat?)

I agree that a mentally ill person, a criminal, or any "evil-doer", if you will, should be kept away from gun purchase or ownership, but first) who deems a man "evil" or unworthy? you? a doctor? a cop? a judge? a DMV worker? lol. Second) If I wanted to hurt someone, guess what? I wouldnt use my own gun; which goes back to this kid erasing the serial numbers on the guns. Why? If everyone would know who he was eventually if he planned on killing himself? Or did he plan that?

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 1:18 PM

re filing the SNs off, can't help but think of Travis Bickell as he slowly toppled down the crazy hole.

Speaking of which, why did Travis Bickell come to mind?

And wasn't he played by a famous, much-admired movie star? Oh, sure, he was shown to be 'bad', but 'bad' in that creative/destructive way.

So, markus, you clean up your liberal pals in Hollywood why dontcha, and let me hunt n shoot like my grandpappy did.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Buddy, I was agreeing with you, but for some reason that part didnt show up in my post.

It seems this guy's personality, life, and mental state is really starting to come together now.

Many students and teachers (educators) now coming out with information about his writings. Many disturbing stories; are these not signs? Its seems that people saw the problem, but didnt want to confront it, or accept just how troubled this kid might be. I'm not blaming anyone, but this is a reflection of our society nowadays, where people just dont want to "deal" with each other, or stop and ask someone, "do you need help?" "is something wrong?" "are you mad about something?"

I dont know how many times I have to stop and help someone who gets stuck in the middle of the street, because their car broke down. You wouldnt believe if I told you how many people just keep driving by. The point: As a country, maybe we need to start communicating better, know your neighbor, talk to your co-workers. (This kid's roommate lived with him, but never talked to him?)

Maybe it's because I'm from a different culture, or because I never lived on campus during college, but how do you live with another person and never stop to get to know them? Too many times we ignore when others are in pain or need help, like this kid obviously needed help (immediate psychiatric help obviously)

Sorry for the rant. Great topics here.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 1:28 PM

Buddy:

Hollywood is special. They live in mansions and lecture the rich, the make slasher movies and preach about violent redstaters owning guns. Go figure.

I think it is worth noting that Hitler rose to power in Germany a country without a musty old 220 year old Document with some silly uncivilized second amendment thingee.

Posted by: Terrye at April 17, 2007 1:42 PM

Terrye, yes, it's pretty sinister. It may even be largely unconscious, to the lefty mind. But the play is, glamorize the hell out of violence, pour the images (which bypass intellect and go straight into our primeval limbic brain parts) into our youngest and our more vulnerable, then apply the Marxist critique to the resulting chaos and pervasive fear of life, and try to slowly dissolve the Constitution and get it out of the way of the Revolution.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 2:08 PM

I'm not American, and I haven't read the arguments relating to the 2d amendment. However, I do know that at the time of the American Revolution, in Europe, the only people allowed to have firearms at all times, were aristocrats, ie, landowners. Non-aristocrats were allowed firearms if they were in the armed forces, and also, under very special circumstances (like, they were on cattle drives, etc.)

So, the 2d amendment was as far as I can see, intended to support a democracy; and a recognition that not only an aristocratic landowning class should have access to firearms.

This is probably why Europeans (and Canadians) are so outraged at American gun-laws: neither Europe nor Canada are particularly democratic.

Posted by: heather at April 17, 2007 2:31 PM

Buddy -- please note: I did answer your question about which tyrant afforded 2nd amendment protection to his subjects.

Posted by: markus at April 17, 2007 3:06 PM

Okay, markus, but the exception proves the rule. Esp since Saddam's weirded-out method of one-fiend despotism doesn't really fall into the classical pool of examples. It was more of a prison than a nation. So, under Saddam you had a right to bear arms, but no right to anything else, including your life. I can't see any dents in the original premise, that, as Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 3:26 PM

--And just so we're clear. NRA-types are idiots---BULLSEYE!! How's that for aim?--

Congrats, jparodi625, you've made me get off my ass and actually complete my NRA application even tho I don't own any firearms.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 17, 2007 3:32 PM

We also didn't have a standing army, heather.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 17, 2007 3:34 PM

jparodi625, why don't you have a conversation w/Bill Quick of DailyPundit?

Posted by: Sandy P at April 17, 2007 3:35 PM

The way he ruled by clans inside tribes inside a country, it probably served him well to have the people armed. You know, Old West style, where Sam Colt's Peacemaker "made all men equal". An armed society is a polite society, as the old saw goes.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 3:36 PM

Forget Germany, think the KKK would have had as much power if freed slaves were allowed to own guns after the Civil War?????

Posted by: Sandy P at April 17, 2007 3:38 PM

4 libs in Philly had already put forth a very onerous gun control bill to the state congress.

Everyone should read the requirements.

Posted by: Sandy P at April 17, 2007 3:39 PM

If Cho had a fulltime job in a Korean market he wouldn't have had the energy left for this madness.

Posted by: ricpic at April 17, 2007 4:01 PM

Saddam allowed some people to own guns if they behaved themselves and were of the correct ethnic group. Otherwise he gassed them and starved them and tortured them and murdered them. What has that got to with anything?

Ah yes, kicking in the doors of law abiding Americans who have the temerity to own a gun and confiscating their weapons is going to stop this sort of thing....how?

Posted by: Terrye at April 17, 2007 4:20 PM

Maybe I will join the NRA. I do own a gun and if it would piss off the ghouls using this tragedy to advance their political agenda it might be worth it.

BTW, I hear that Obama is comparing this to the whole Imus thing. I think Imus is a moron who probably deserved to be fired just for being stupid enough to screw up such a pud job, but to compare his mouth to this rampage, well that is just stupid.

Posted by: Terrye at April 17, 2007 4:25 PM

It is interesting that one mark of the 'Leftist' is to be anti NRA..

In my opinion Leftists think of themselves as superior beings (you know, credentialled, more sensitive-than-thou, etc etc) to the hoi polloi. As such, they would like to control those NRA types.

Tom Wolfe describes a huge stock car race. Not your blue state folk for sure. And when the NRA rep got up to speak, there was a gigantic roar and applause before he said a word.

These people know that gun control is not about 'saving the innocent'. It is all about control of the 'lesser' by the 'superior.'

Posted by: heather at April 17, 2007 4:37 PM

I wish there were something more about that "Ismail Ax" thing, though. Thanks to BoliFx for tracking down one possibility, ie the Ax of Abraham...

Posted by: heather at April 17, 2007 4:39 PM

"Ismail Ax" was written WHERE on his arm?

Posted by: TeeKayN at April 17, 2007 5:16 PM

heather, upthread there's a blurb about James Fenimore Cooper's "The Prairie", and that the killer being an English major, it may've been familiar to him.

Here's something on the work. The villiain is "Ishmael Bush", hmm....

But, you know, nertz is nertz is nertz.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 5:18 PM

He is Ishmael the outcast and outlawed wanderer. He is a kind of gypsy Caliban of brutish and powerful strength doomed to suffer in his own private dungeon of ignorance, unless he learns. We first see him crashing across the prairie in one of Cooper's best descriptive passages:
[snip]
He was a tall, sunburnt man, past the middle age, of a dull countenance and listless manner.
[snip]
He dresses like a gypsy, absurdly loaded with the plunder of a hundred brushes with hated civilization: a silken sash, a silver-hafted knife, a marten's-fur cap, Mexican coins for buttons, three worthless watches slung around his neck, a rifle with a mahogany stock banded in precious metal; and he carries the prime symbol of evil -- the spoiler's axe. Like Lennie in Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, he is ignorant, but possessed of terrible and menacing potential for destruction which he can barely control. He stands for the great barbarian melting pot of America, unleashed, in Cooper's aristocratic view, upon the prostrate body of nature.

(snips, ellipses, italics, are mine)
Lotsa fantastical fantasy fuel here.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 5:40 PM

Anyway, it's unseemly to grant literary impulse to this creep's act--like the Manson hippies murdering because the Beatles' "Helter Skelter" told them to. But, point is, this Ishmael may've not been the Biblical character. This by way of trying to figure out if there is a jihad connection.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 6:04 PM

yeah, the murderer seems to have been completely isolated in himself.. no friends, no social life, nothing. So, I have to conclude, no jihadi impulse there at all. In fact, I would agree with Buddy Larson that the murderer may have been familiar with Ishmael Bush, rather than Abraham, etc.

Those 'plays' he wrote are ugly of course, but also extremely immature in feeling. His fellow classmates mention that no-one really wanted to talk about his plays with him .. I think maybe not because they were frightening so much as they are embarrassingly.. well.. immature, childish.

Posted by: heather at April 17, 2007 7:12 PM

http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/

"AOL News has obtained two plays a classmate says were written by Cho Seung-Hui. Ian MacFarlane, the former classmate and current AOL employee, provided us with the plays. A note from Mr. MacFarlane and links to the works appear below."...in case anyone is curious.

Let's not get caught up with subjects about Jihad (Holy War), Mohammed, or Islam; my point earlier is a possible connection since the story of Ismael's ax seemed to make sense to me at the time, but another post makes me push more towards the English major literature theory. Maybe tommorrow or soon the police will finally release the evidence, and let us know what really happened (the first 2 victims, the notes, the tatoo? Ismail Ax?)

Also, the important questions should be: Why did the campus police wait several hours before calling on the local police? They had a person of interest (not Cho), who did they have in custody? Possible multiple persons involved? Did someone know maybe what he was going to do?

Check out what MacFarlane said according to the link I posted above:

"A note from Mr. MacFarlane and links to the works appear below,
What happened yesterday:

When I first heard about the multiple shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday, my first thought was about my friends, and my second thought was "I bet it was Seung Cho." '

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 7:23 PM

from the link above:

"A major part of the playwriting class was peer reviews. We would write one-act plays and submit them to an online repository called Blackboard for everyone in the class to read and comment about in class the next day. Typically, the students give their opinions about the plays and suggest ways to make it better, the professor gives his insights, then asks the author to comment about the play in class.

When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare. The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of. Before Cho got to class that day, we students were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter. I was even thinking of scenarios of what I would do in case he did come in with a gun, I was that freaked out about him. When the students gave reviews of his play in class, we were very careful with our words in case he decided to snap. Even the professor didn't pressure him to give closing comments."

Crazy stuff.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 7:30 PM

This right here pinpoints what I have been trying to say...sometimes, instead of saying, 'he was a monster, a killer, a psycho'...why not say, he was a scared, lonely, disturbed, sick kid crying out for help, and when no one answered, he cried even louder, in such a way that the entire world heard him, and people had to die because of his "outburst". sad. I just hate that these innocent students had to suffer due to Cho's pains and demons.

from Ian MacFarland's post:

"While I was hesitant at first to release these plays (because I didn't know if there are laws against it), I had to put myself in the shoes of the average person researching this situation. I'd want to know everything I could about the killer to figure out what could drive a person to do something like this and hopefully prevent it in the future. Also, I hope this might help people start caring about others more no matter how weird they might seem, because if this was some kind of cry for attention, then he should have gotten it a long time ago."

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 7:36 PM

Cho was obviously insane. Anyone who tries to make more of this is a disingenuous oppotunist.

That said we need to engender more respect for human life. We can do so by eschewing the legacy of Nixon appointee Harry Blackmun.

Posted by: Terry Gain at April 17, 2007 7:41 PM

Give every Jew stuck in Germany a rifle, and they would have been met with two antisemites with better ones.

At least they would have gone down fighting.

It is much too dangerous to only allow authority to have weapons. Who wants to put the protection of himself/herself and their families in the hands of a police force saddled with PC concerns and fears of ALCU-sponsered lawsuits, and that in any case will probably arrive on the scene too late for anything other than helping to carry their bodies out in stretchers?

Posted by: Godzilla at April 17, 2007 7:48 PM

Interesting info: (*rich kids & religion)

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/virginia-tech-shooting/20070416102509990001

"Cho - who arrived in the United States as boy from South Korea in 1992 and was raised in suburban Washington, D.C., where his parents worked at a dry cleaners - left a note that was found after the bloodbath.

A law enforcement official who read Cho's note described it Tuesday as a typed, eight-page rant against rich kids and religion. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

"You caused me to do this," the official quoted the note as saying.

Cho indicated in his letter that the end was near and that there was a deed to be done, the official said. He also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity, the official said.

The official said the letter was either found in Cho's dorm room or in his backpack. The backpack was found in the hallway of the classroom building where the shootings happened, and contained several rounds of ammunition, the official said."

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 17, 2007 7:53 PM

Argh.

Okay, Terry --- not Terrye, Terry --- yellow card for managing, in four sentences, to both say that people trying to exploit this are "disingenuous opportunists" *and* then trying to connect it to abortion.

TomTom, I don't have such a tough time seeing a guy who methodically killed 32 people before eating a round himself as "psychotic". I also have to admit I don't find the whole concept of a person "being evil" all that useful. That doesn't mean there aren't times when you have to put a bad dog down.

Aviazn, it appears he grew up in a two-parent two-child husehold, his family were Christian, and owned a shop. I know, I hate it when a perfectly good theory falls apart.

Markus, as someone noted, it's not availability of guns alone that makes the difference, or else the Swiss would be up to their ankles in blood. It's also not the unavailability of weapons, or DC and Detroit would have the lowest murder rates in the country. Gun crime rates in the UK have gone up dramatically since they restricted handguns severely; gun crime rates have gone*down* in the US since the "assult weapons" ban sunsetted. The correlation between gun restrictions and reduced gun crime seems pretty weak if not negative. What would happen if we were to look elsewhere for an explanation?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at April 17, 2007 9:09 PM

Communist East Germany seemed very docile. Every third person was a Stasi informant, watching the other two. They would've shuffled Mr. Chou off to a rest home, after his first play. Which, in that case, he probably wouldn't have written in the first place.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 9:35 PM

If only we could have a police state for those in need of it, but not for those in no need of it.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 17, 2007 9:40 PM

"Give every Jew stuck in Germany a rifle, and they would have been met with two antisemites with better ones."

Classic markus. He loves it when Jews go meekly to their slaughter, but can't stand the thought of them actually standing up and fighting for themselves.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 17, 2007 11:03 PM

Charlie(CO): I think you miss my point. Calling him psychotic means M'Naughton Rule, implies we should seek 'root causes' and otherwise understand and treat, a la Hinkley, who is now released for weekends out. Call Cho a 'bad dog', fine-I'll call him evil; our response is the same: put him down, ASAP. But it comes after the the deed, that is the problem, not before. And that is demonstrably way too high a price, in blood and lives, to pay. Kinda like 9/11, though smaller by a factor of 100.

Posted by: TomTom at April 18, 2007 7:50 AM

Well, I for one I'm glad the supremes have called for some 'disturbing' killings to stop, in a stunning rebuke of unconditional abortions at all times and at any cost.

It's a good thing.

Posted by: Lem at April 18, 2007 9:49 AM

Fact: Certain predators seeking to make a media splash seek soft targets (equally true of terrorists and whacked out people wanting to make a name for themselves when committing suicide).

Fact: We can't harden every potential target well enough to prevent an attack.

Fact: When an attack on a soft target occurs, we need quick, effective response. As a long history of medicine shows, the quickest response is by the people on the spot (whether CPR, defibillators, or whatever).

Fact: Uncertainity is a potential weapon.

Conclusion: Like the thing with arming airline pilots that never got pushed like it should (thanks a bunch, Mineta!), the key is for certain people to be armed, but exactly who not to be known.

The crime rates in the GA county that instituted the Swiss-like "shall own" law plummented despite the fact that it was widely discussed that the county got, at best, 30% compliance. Still, *most* criminals are rational people, and think that 30% chance of the homeowner being armed as too high.

It does not follow that just anyone should be allowed to carry a weapon onto a campus anymore than an airplane. It's OK to have "small gun free zones unless you jump through some hoops first", as long as it's understood that the hoops are practical and confined to that zone. Having any random teen armed in a high school doesn't strike me as a good idea. Having every 4th or 5th teach packing sounds a lot better. Especially since these teachers are self selected, can take lessons at a range, etc. It would even be fine for carefully screen students to qualify, at least in a college, or maybe late high school. (Sample criteria: 3.5 or better GPA; Certified gun safety courses; Pristine driving record; No disciplinary offenses whatsoever; Registered with the principal. Very few psychos will meet that list. It makes the nice distinction that owning a gun is a right. Carrying it on the campus is a privilege.)

Most gun accidents occur with people that don't know squat about guns. Even so, private citizens have a 2:1 advantage over police in justified versus accidental deaths. There's a good reason for this, and it isn't a slam on police. **When you are a private citizen, in a place where you are supposed to be, minding your own business, the kind of threats that cause you to pull out a gun are almost always real threats.** The police must deal with a lot of ambiguous situations that private citizens tend to miss or avoid.

We can't harden all soft targets. We can disguise them. A good way to disguise it to make people wonder whether the target is soft or not. Then the psycho suicide types can go back mainly to driving themselves off of bridges or blowing their brains out solo. It won't stop them all. There is always a way. But a guy looking to make a splash with a bomb is easier to notice in time for prevention.

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at April 18, 2007 10:33 AM

Deterrence may be iffy with a wanna-be massacre/suicide --but stopping him ASAP is unquestionably a good thing.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 18, 2007 11:35 AM

Buddy,

"Deterrence may be iffy with a wanna-be massacre/suicide --but stopping him ASAP is unquestionably a good thing."

It's not just deterrence from doing the massacre. It's also deterrence at certain moments throughout the massacre. Consider:

The guy has already killed, and is now moving onto the next classroom. He knows that he is not in a gun-free zone, and that others have probably heard the shots. Thus he moves somewhat slower, given the good guys more time. Or maybe not, you can never say for sure with any one person. But if a guy is committed to the massacre, the more uncertain you can make him about the means, the better off we'll be. Even if he goes charging in trying to get as many as possible before gunned down, he has to know in the back of his mind that multiple people could be drawing a bead on him--right now.

That's the other side of the medical analogy, BTW. Of course, a heart attack can't be slowed by confusing it. But the people providing early care can help both by fighting the heart attack head on and by buying time for the patient until better trained people can arrive.

It's great if a civilian kills the guy before he murders again. It's just as good if a group of civilians puts a cross-fire down the hallway, confining the guy to one class room where he has done as much damage as he can do, while another set of students report to the police on cell phones, explain the situation, and identify everyone's location. I think a SWAT team could handle *that* situation pretty well compared to the usual massacre situation.

I'm sure someone will say that the last thing a SWAT team needs is having to distinguish between armed civilians and the bad guys. Before cell phones, that might have given me some pause. Now, hell no! Want to require everyone registered to carry on campus to also have a cell phone and know how to call local police? Knock yourselves out. I know I'd rather have that than be unarmed.

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at April 18, 2007 12:12 PM

Good points, all. Plus, the suicider might change his mind, mid-carnage, decide he doesn't want to be gunned down, and surrender. This happens. More reason to have armed civvies, the sooner to bring deadly force to bear on him.

The answer to SWAT teams shooting the wrong shooter--ya got me. Will be a problem, always that potential. But if the VT shooter had been dropped in that first classroom, 25 or so of the victims would still be alive.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 18, 2007 12:25 PM

"The answer to SWAT teams shooting the wrong shooter--ya got me. Will be a problem, always that potential. But if the VT shooter had been dropped in that first classroom, 25 or so of the victims would still be alive. "

That's the answer right there. If we could go back to last week and set things up so that, say, civilians kill the guy in the first classroom after he opened fire, but then the SWAT guys kill two civilians in the resulting confusion--we'd take it. We'd like to do better, but we'd take it. The 23 net civilians and their families would probably be jumping at the chance.

And note that it would take incredibly bad luck for the SWAT guys to kill in this case. The civilians would have to kill the bad guy before SWAT arrives, but not so quickly that things could calm down and be reported. That'd be a neat trick, considering SWAT wouldn't yet be in position on a quick takedown. The only other alternative is that the civilians and the bad guy are in an inconclusive shootout. By definition, that slows the killer down, and rapidly shrinks his ability to kill. So we are back to trading a few *possible* SWAT kills of innocents versus almost *surefire*, multiple kills by the killer. And we still have the cell phones.

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at April 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Law enforcement didn't get the James Gang.

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at April 18, 2007 1:43 PM

Law enforcement is automatically late to the scene, barring serendipity. It's just physics.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 18, 2007 2:51 PM

Even blue-sky like an armed guard in every classroom (unless he/she is incognito--another neat trick even if the money was no factor) just guarantees who gets shot first when the killer pulls his pistol out of his backpack. Really, there's no point-defense other than a virtuous web of incapacitating tools as near as possible to hand.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 18, 2007 3:01 PM

Today Charles Krauthammer who practiced as a psychiatrist prior to becoming a politcal commentator, observed that Cho was not a delusional and disorganized schizophrenic or psycotic individual. Cho cooly, methodically and very deliberately planned and carried out a fairly complicated scenario something a delusional schizophrenic is not capable of. No doubt that Cho was a very disturbed person with a personality disorder of some kind but a psychotic? No.

My own theory is that there are some individuals who become very angry either from perceived or real abuse from some source. The abuse doesn't have to be physical or even intended but it is accomopanied by a sense of helplessness and the anger just becomes huge and sometimes explodes in violence. Cho felt rejected by all accounts by his peers and could very well have turned the normal angst any young person feels when not included in the normal cultural/social activities into a desire for revenge fueled by this monumental rage. Such people are rejected most usually because of their odd and very needy behavior which often is displayed in thinly veiled manipulation and attempts to control others.

He was known to stalk at least three young women on campus as his two former dorm roommates explained with police being called twice. He killed his first victim, an 18 year old girl, in her room. They were not dating, if anything he probably was stalking her as well. The second person killed was the Student Advisor, Clark, who came by to see what the commotion (gun shots) were about. He was not involved in any triangle - just carrying out his dorm supervision duties.

It is interesting to note that it seems that most mass murderers are loners, friendless, failures by societies measurments, have been bullied and excluded by peers/neighbors and have been menancing people for quite some time. I feel that their is a void in their emotional make-up where a need for love and security should dwell but has been instead filled with a devastating hopelessness turned to a monumental rage. FWIW that's my take on most of these pathetic twisted guys (very few women act out in mass murder).

Posted by: jane m at April 18, 2007 7:39 PM

"Today Charles Krauthammer who practiced as a psychiatrist prior to becoming a politcal commentator, observed that Cho was not a delusional and disorganized schizophrenic or psycotic individual." -jane m

Thanks for the insight jane...this is exactly what I've been saying. Cho also had to wait 5 weeks before he actually had the first gun in his possession (the so called "cooling off" period), and only afterwards did he then purchase the second gun and additional ammo.

These are the organized, planned, sick methods of a mass murderer; much like a serial killer, he planned it, he thought about it, he fantasized about it...working out all the posibilities in his head before-hand.

His "disturbing note" (the initial topic of this thread), was a direct indication of an agenda. What most people miss is that a person's agenda may be a personal one, not necessarily a group/religious/political agenda. He ranted in the note about things he hated; had contempt and anger towards-so much that he had to act upon it. This behavior is similar in serial murderers.

Being such a loner, his world existed in his head, online, in his computer, in the net...his world was a virtual one, and his actions (only to himself of course), were justified in his demented mind.

I read posts commenting that, "he was crazy. period." Well, you can close your eyes to the world, but it will still be here. As a society, it is our responsibility to learn from this, study this; in order to find out why a man like Cho existed and why he did what he did. If anything, maybe to prevent it by reaching out to other future Cho's, and letting them know that there is another way out of the Hell that is their minds. The solution is not to "put them down" as I read above.

We are not dogs. (If you put such small or no value in life like that, any life, then you are no better than a killer, and have already lost yourself.) We are human beings. All of us.

What truly scares us is not Cho, or his actions, but the fact that a fellow human being was capable of such horror, so we try to make him out to be so different from us: a monster, a robot, a thing; and we fear that the same demons could exist in ourselves, so we say, "put him down." "he doesnt matter." "dont bother with it." It will not go away (it will happen again), and therefore we must take a closer look into the mind of Cho and those like him, and do something to understand it finally. I will not accept "we'll never know"...with that kind of attitude, we would be living in the Dark Ages still...we must know, if we are to survive, and grow as a species.

Posted by: Boli_FX at April 18, 2007 8:56 PM

I agree, that's the right philosophical platform, for sure, Boli_FX.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 18, 2007 10:05 PM

hey guyz you might wanna check this out... it's about how he came with the name Ismail
http://islamthreat.blogspot.com/

Posted by: lovelyD at April 19, 2007 7:38 AM

Even without speculation, nobody in their right mind can say that this crime didn't involve hatred, nor that the incredible volumes of hatred in the air didn't help move this guy along his pathway to catharsis.

Are you paying any attention, Rosie "Truthie" O'Donnell?

Yes, for the foul atmosphere where these corpse-flowers grow, I blame the left, 80/20.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 19, 2007 9:33 AM

Didn't strong elements of the killer's video rant more or less echo the "Duke 80" ideas? Privileged people have no rights, in the Brave New World?

"They" are up for grabs, railroad 'em, shoot 'em, whatever?

--and, y'know, they don't even have to be privileged, they can be hard-working ordinary strivers, it really doesn't matter, because the highest truth is only in your head, a "personal matter" you know.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 19, 2007 9:43 AM

This stuff is not new --the French Revolution went thru it, step-by-philosophical-step, and it led straight to the perfectly rational decapitation of thirty or forty thousand Frenchmen (and women), followed soon after by a revulsion that killed its own leaders, and the collapse of society into grandiose fascism--a military dictatorship--and the endless war it needed to control the popular passions that "The Terror" had unleashed.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at April 19, 2007 10:00 AM

Very important question: Was Cho Seung-hui Catholic? He has a sister. Does he have any other sisters and brothers? I have no wish to malign any religion or group, just wish to know what caused this tragedy. Both of his disturbing plays were rants regarding pedophilia. Cho Seung-hui shows a very extreme form of all of the classic signs of childhood sexual abuse. When he says, "You made me do it," is he talking to the person who abused him? When he says, "I did it for them," is he referring to the tens of thousands of children who were sexually abused. Is his family Catholic? Is it unfair to ask that question? I know Catholics are sorry about what happened with their priests, but it is what is. I believe Cho Seung-hui wasn severely molested by someone, a family member, a religious person, or family friend.

Posted by: Sarah K. at April 19, 2007 11:48 AM

Very important question: Was Cho Seung-hui Catholic? He has a sister. Does he have any other sisters and brothers? I have no wish to malign any religion or group, just wish to know what caused this tragedy. Both of his disturbing plays were rants regarding pedophilia including references to Catholic priests. It seems unusual for non-Catholics to rant about what Catholic priests did. Cho Seung-hui shows a very extreme form of all of the classic signs of childhood sexual abuse. When he says, "You made me do it," is he talking to the person who abused him? When he says, "I did it for them," is he referring to the tens of thousands of children who were sexually abused. Is his family Catholic? Is it unfair to ask that question? I know Catholics are sorry about what happened with their priests, but it is what is. I believe Cho Seung-hui was severely molested by someone, a family member, a religious person, or family friend.

Posted by: Sarah K. at April 19, 2007 12:03 PM

Sorry, don't know how the above got posted twice. Could the monitor remove one of them?

Posted by: Sarah K. at April 19, 2007 12:07 PM

Today I turned on the news, and it seems the media (only after hearing the cries of the community to stop focusing so much on Cho, and instead talk more about the victims) has focused more on the victims; this is apparent as many major news channels like CNN now have pictures of the victims and their lives, instead of Cho (you'll still find his pic on the side)

Unfortunately, it's not the media that determines the news, but the viewers (again, it's always ratings=supply and demand). Let's be honest...we'll all watch bits and pieces of the victims, maybe pray for them & their familes as we have in my home, but then what? you just say, "it's so sad" but then you focus back on Cho.

And, with the recent arrival of his video/pictures mailed to NBC...well, you can imagine how once again, even from beyond the grave, he has managed to grab much attention (are we seeing a pattern here? the ignored lonely unknown, the loser, the nobody...now the center of international/world news? hmmmmmm....I'm personally starting to see his agenda now.)

Although, if you want to read some very interesting twists on the whole "Ismail Ax" theories, check out previous thread posted, very intersting. Thanks LovelyD.

ABC has actually asked people to post their "Ismail Ax" theories, check it out here, but first, here is a fascinating theory from someone:

"In the classic 1982 Bergman film Fanny & Alexander, Ismael is a mysterious angel-like creature who guides the hero (Alexander) to will the death of his stepfather.

The androgynous character Ismael is from a Jewish family which is steeped in mysticism - is apparently mad and is constantly kept locked in his secured room.

In a horrifying sequence Ismael induces Alexander to embrace his ill-will and psychically cause the horrible death of his cruel and domineering clergyman stepfather.

I just happened to watch the movie last night and was struck by the coincidence."