<p>Lax, Just let it go. I’ve found that sometimes the most effective response is not response at all. If we as Americans can not learn to discuss these issues intelligently we can have no hope of any real solutions here at home or anywhere else.</p>
<p>I definitely think the school acted wrongly in this case. If the first shooting happened at 7:15, and the gunman was not apprehended, then they should have locked down campus. It’s ridiculous for them not to. </p>
<p>I’ve heard the argument that it was thought to be only a domestic dispute, but here’s my reasoning:
So let’s say, in an alternative universe, it was a domestic dispute confined to that dorm, but the gunman was still loose. Just because the gunman may have only the intention of killing the one person doesn’t mean he is not dangerous. Someone in that state of mind, having just shot two people is dangerous. Suppose someone had gotten in his way as he tried to escape?
The fact that they didn’t know what was going on is even more grounds for locking down campus. They locked down in August for a shooting which occurred off campus when the shooter ran onto campus. This is the same.
Bottom line: There was a man lose with a gun on campus who had just shot two people. Why would they think he was not a danger to others? The campus should have been locked down.
Now, granted, they could not have anticipated an event of this magnitude, and I do not “blame” the university for it, but their actions were ridiculous, and perhaps some of these killings could have been prevented had they taken the proper precautions.</p>
<p>I think it’s easy to look back and say we should have done this. The fact is it is almost logistically impossible to lock down a 20,000+ campus. Especially when a great # of that 20,000 don’t live on campus. What if they locked it down and, since the student lived in the dorms, was able to slaughter everyone in his dorm (since they were all “locked down” in there)? Everyone would be arguing about why they forced students into their dorms when the posibility remained that the first shooter lived in the dorms. I think this situation was handled as well as it could have been, some things “just happen.”</p>
<p>Ohhhh, looks like I missed a flame. Too bad, I would have liked to have seen what you could have “assertated” about me. That’s cute too…but I kind of already figured that’s what I was dealing with here. Lax, you keep demonizing me by saying you had no problems except with me. Well, I said what I said to EVERYONE and got positive responses too. Why are you the only one who responded with flames and with sexist comments? Not only that, but you said I just can’t seem to come up with the sexist thing you said. Should I point you to my immediate response the first time you asked? Or should I just reiterate the fact that I never said all men were criminals–THAT is sexist–but your retort was that women are not logical. Anyway, this is out-of-hand ridiculous.</p>
<p>Dicey, </p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Even though the hypothetical was proposed jokingly, a principle not lost to other savvier readers, the flames tonight just made me think about the issue more in depth, and have thus brought up an interesting, more serious point: </p>
<p>Why can we admit that certain racial groups suffer inequitable disparities, so we remedy that with special race-based rights like affirmative action that prop one group up over the other to level the playing field (in terms of education)? But then when there is an even more disparate inequity between other groups (in terms of human LIVES) that manifests itself with a difference in orders of magnitude compared to racial demographics in higher education, now that is illogical, horrible, and produces a barrage of personal insults (but no valid response)? If you cannot handle controversial issues and hypothetical situations being deconstructed intellectually, then what the hell are you doing participating in a gun control/gun rights debate in the thread anyway? Your nasty insults cannot compensate for your failure to consider, or even acknowledge, these logical contradictions. Affirmative action addresses one group’s socio-political deficit, but it’s sexist to even hypothetically propose a parallel theory? </p>
<p>And I will reiterate: you’re the only one who said anything sexist. I never said all men were criminals–THAT’S sexist. You, however, did respond with the “logic” that my hypothetical compromise (which I pointed out was merely hypothetical because the logistics would be nearly impossible) between pro/anti-gun nuts was ridiculous because women aren’t logical. I’m the sexist one? I addressed this issue with the same logic we apply to other social issues every day. If you can’t handle intellectual musings outside the box in which you and other sheeple think, I think I know which one of us is more well-suited for institutions of higher learning–dismissal or no.</p>
<p>Lax, Re: abortion</p>
<p>I honestly think it’s hilarious that you used that example, because one of my, ahem, other controversial beliefs that wouldn’t go over well with liberals, conservatives, and feminists alike is that men shouldn’t have to pay child support outside the context of prior marriage. I see it as both a protection of Roe and being more fair to a legal double-standard placed on men. I won’t go into it any further than that though, because I don’t need EVERYONE flaming me, haha. I think most logically-inclined people who like deconstructing arguments could probably figure out for themselves how it’s a protection of Roe anyway.</p>
<p>“But let’s be honest and hone your contention to a more accurate picture: MEN kill people. When women go on shooting sprees instead of being disproportionately affected as victims of male-perpetrated crimes, I’ll review my opinion and take your “women are less rational” statement seriously.”</p>
<p>Call me crazy, but that’s a sexist comment. By my women are less rational statment I assume you are referring to my response to your post (which I quoted a few messages ago) where I said “that’s a great idea dicey, because women are so much more rational and moral then men…” that was sarcasm. If it didn’t come accross that way to you then I’m sorry, but I didn’t mean to say men are superior. Either way you’re comments lead many to believe that ONLY MEN are responsible for gun crimes…which is absolutely false. You’re generalizations are just mind-boggling…</p>
<p><strong>Also, I think AA is racist. Just like I think curbing mens rights to own guns cuz they commit more crimes is sexist. Going by this logic we should curb middle-easterners rights to ride planes, the rights of mothers to care for babies (Andrea Yates!!), and the rights of people who wish to drink (drunk driving)</strong></p>
<p>w/e though, I’m not gonna change your opinion…you’re not gonna change mine. We’ll leave it at that…</p>
<p>Dicey, </p>
<pre><code> It’s 3:00 a.m here and I’m going to bed. You have fun now.
</code></pre>
<p>That was my RESPONSE attacking the “logic” of your sexist comment. You can’t see the parallel? My retort used the same logic you did.</p>
<p>So you’re anti-AA. Just like you’re anti-gun control. But would you have reacted by flaming proponents of those positions instead of intelligently debating?</p>
<p>And THAT is the central issue between us, folks. It’s not sexism–that’s just decorating the underlying problem here.</p>
<p>SarahsMom, why am I in the wrong for engaging him when he is the one who keeps reviving the issue day after day? He’s engaging me, you know… And remember, he was the flamer. I never flamed him.</p>
<p>Please let me clarify, Iam furiously angry at this crazed and sick lunatic, clearly he was in another state of mind that most of us cannot possibly relate to. I am blaming him and only him for the tragedy that has happened. That said my point is that I think as a society that unfornately has produced some pretty sick people, just look at the news on a daily basis, we do have a moral obligation to be vigilant and aware and if we see someone who “is not quite right” or who we suspect may have troubles/issues, its easy to turn our back and go on with our own great lives, but there are kids that are truly suffering in a big way and have no one to reach out to. I read there were teachers and faculty and students who observed his odd behavior and increasing desire to be totally alone, isn’t that a red flag right there? I mean this kid should have been going to the school psychologist on a daily basis or his family should have been contacted, I mean if he is walking around in a virtually catatonic state, that does mean there is a big problem. Sadly I hope this most tragic incident might raise awareness in schools across the country, workplaces,etc…that if there is someone who really seems “out of the loop” that we will try to seek whatever help for that person that is within our ability in hopes that we can prevent more bloodshed and the loss of innocent lives. My heart grieves for the families who have lost their young kids, at such a prime time of their life. This is just so sad and shocking I still find it hard to comprehend.</p>
<p>Thank you, sarahsmom. Well said. (post 575)</p>
<p>Hey, tututaxi-
What happened the the post you posted at 5:04 a.m.?</p>
<p>Among other ggood points you made, you had pointed out (correctly) that this family has been in the US for 15 yrs or so (the shooter would have been about 8 when they came here, not 15-- I calculated from 1992, getting the 15 yrs, but wrote it wrong-- my bad). Thanks for correcting it.</p>
<p>So many questions yet to be (if ever?) answered.</p>
<p>I’m wondering if the boy felt vastly inferior to his sister, a Princeton grad. If he was an English major, why VT (why not UVA?)?</p>
<p>“Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported that Cho’s parents, who ran a dry cleaning shop in Centreville, Virginia, had been hospitalised after learning of ther son’s killing rampage at Virginia Tech University.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=261805[/url]”>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=261805</a></p>
<p><a href=“Home | Thomson Reuters”>Home | Thomson Reuters;
<p>This article, which seems very credible, says that Cho’s behavior in class had been so disturbing as long ago as 2005 that his professor, a noted poet, insisted he be removed or she would resign from teaching. It is a shame that no one intervened to prevent this, if such obvious behavior had been going on for so long.</p>
<p>I dont think that random people should get in classes, Now you know why!!
Colleges should have more security.</p>