Thoughts

[etumukutenyak]

Now that the initial horror is fading, the post-mortems begin. The questions being floated in the mass media -- of the police response, for the 2 hour delay, the gun purchases, the clear signs of wrongness displayed by the killer -- most are missing the point or blaming the wrong people.

First, the killer: it's clear from reports that many students and professors reached out to him, only to be stymied by his stonewalling. You can make him go to counseling, but you can't force him to get well. This kind of person needs to be identified early, if only for tracking. You can't simplify this into "all kids who say bad things go to the psych ward", as many young children don't know what the deeper meaning is behind such words as "I'll kill you". It's just words that make grownups react and give them more attention, which is the point of such words to young children. Older kids, teens and college students, would be expected to know the deeper meaning and from them this kind of language -- or any language of violence that is out of proportion -- should be identified. This kind of person should not be buying guns, even if they don't have a criminal record.

There was probably nothing wrong with his family. This kind of personality disorder goes much farther than mis-parenting or any other alleged mistreatment. Many people grow up in dysfunctional homes and most of them don't kill anyone.

Second, the initial killing: it should never have been described as "just a domestic". I don't know whether the inital police response was this cavalier, or if that was the media's interpretation. Violence should not be less important for having been targeted at a woman. The police do play the odds, and odds are you're more likely to be killed by someone in your family/household. When a young woman is violently murdered, the police do think first of a boyfriend. However, the campus should have been notified sooner of the first murders. It would not have stopped classes, but it might have made someone more alert in the early morning, and possibly the killer might have been seen on his way to Norris Hall. It's only a possibility.

Third, the time lag: it's now clear that the killer went to the post office to mail videotapes of himself to NBC; the time stamp on the package was 45 minutes after the first shootings. Now we know why it took him so long to get to Norris Hall. My thought here is, why didn't anyone see him on the way in? He was ostensibly carrying chains and closing the doors. Did no one really see that? What if there had been security cameras on the classroom buildings, on the entrances? Could someone have then seen an odd behavior and sent police to check it out? In a public place we don't have an expectation of privacy, so the anti-camera people wouldn't have a legal way to stop that.

Fourth, the use of guns: the natural response of many people is "if only those kids could have been carrying!". I disagree. I firmly believe that guns are tools and should be used by qualified personnel, but they should not be in the hands of the majority of people. We should not be re-arming all citizens, or we'll end up in the Wild West with people shooting one another over the slightest of misperceptions. Remember that most people are jerks without intention; in other words, we often don't intend to do something wrong and piss off others, but we do every day. I'm sure other drivers have been irritated with me just as I have with others. Adding guns to the volatile mix of every day irritations and annoyances doesn't make for a safer society, it just makes for busier morgues and homicide detectives. You don't think so? Ask a police officer or homicide investigator. They're usually quite against arming the populace.

I have no argument with carrying a gun or rifle in situations where called for -- such as being out in the wilds, surveying, or walking/driving in high crime areas where you might well be a target (such as a mobile veterinary practice: money and drugs). Guns are tools. Learn to use one properly, get licensed, and follow the rules.

Let's consider cars in comparison: how many people each day are killed by cars? Large numbers, to be sure. Do we have strict licensing laws governing use of automobiles, training in the use of said autos, traffic cops who monitor for violations, etc? Oh, sure. We also have insurance policies that go up each time we have any accident. But do we have calls for tighter auto controls each time people die? No. Do we make stricter training and longer waiting periods mandatory? No. Do we mourn each time youngsters die in needless traffic accidents? Yes. Do we wear our seatbelts? Not if we're the Governor of New Jersey we don't.

Cars kill plenty of people. It's not the cars, it's the idiots behind the wheel. Guns are used to kill plenty of people. It's not the guns, it's the idiots behind the trigger.

We need to do more than just mouth platitudes about tighter gun control -- certain restrictions do make sense, as do the criminal records check. We don't want to make it easy for felons to get guns, and we do want to punish those who misuse them. However, when someone is determined to get a gun and kill people, we aren't going to stop them with restrictions on gun sales.

We need to stop them before they get to the point of reaching for a gun, or failing that, identify them as they begin their rampage and stop them. We need to teach our kids that violence is not the answer to their problems. Video games are not the problem, but perhaps they are a symptom of the underlying fascination with guns and violence in the US. Rap music is not the problem, but the underlying misogyny of the rappers is another symptom of wrongness. Women are not targets, and should not be treated even jokingly or "artistically" as targets.

And when someone is identified as so wrong that classmates won't come to class and the tutor has to have a code word in case of trouble, then that person should not be released from the psychiatric hospital without the university taking other steps to protect its students. That person should be identified so when he attempts to buy a gun -- or poison, or explosives, or any other item that he should not need -- it will be flagged and stopped.

*****
Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom Ha-Shoah) started after sunset on Sunday April 15th, ending at sunset on Monday April 16th. It is rather fitting that a Holocaust survivor ended his life on Yom Ha-Shoah, and did so in saving the lives of his students. We will never forget the name of Liviu Librescu, teaching his students before the attack.

Civil and environmental engineers study ways to improve our lives. We will never forget the names of the engineers who died in their classrooms: Brian Bluhm, Matthew Gwaltney, Jeremy Herbstritt, Jarrett Lane, Partahi Lumbantoruan, Dan O'Neill, Juan Ortiz, Minal Panchal, Julia Pryde, Waleed Shaalan, Maxine Turner. Henry Lee was studying Computer Engineering. Professors GV Loganathan and Kevin Granata were teaching in the classrooms.

International studies is a leaping pad to greater things in the fields of history, politics, foreign service, and more. We will never forget the names of Austin Cloyd, Daniel Perez Cueva, Caitlin Hammaren, Lauren McCain, Erin Peterson, and Nicole White. Others were studying foreign languages for other reasons, or were in math/computer science class, or never even made it to class. We will never forget the names of Ross Alameddine, Ryan Clark, Rachel Hill, Emily Hilscher, Matthew La Porte, Michael Pohle, Mary Read, Reema Samaha, and Leslie Sherman. Professors Jamie Bishop and Jocelyn Couture-Nowak were teaching in the classrooms.

Some of these were children, just beginning college. Others were seniors and graduate students, or established professors. (That's a good indication of the devotion to teaching: seeing people who were clearly well-established in their fields teaching an 8 am class, and not leaving that to a graduate assistant.)

Let's focus on the people who survived, too. I cannot imagine a greater guilt than having survived a violent attack when others around died. Those children need support at this time.

And those are my thoughts.

ETA: Kevin Granata was not teaching, but heard the shots. He put students into his office and saved their lives, then lost his in an attempt to stop the gunman.

Today's Washington Post has an excellent article on the entire story, beginning with the 5 am wake up of the killer.

Comments

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

I have to take issue with this part:

"Fourth, the use of guns: the natural response of many people is "if only those kids could have been carrying!". I disagree. I firmly believe that guns are tools and should be used by qualified personnel, but they should not be in the hands of the majority of people. We should not be re-arming all citizens, or we'll end up in the Wild West with people shooting one another over the slightest of misperceptions..."

States with shall-issue licensing (If you qualify, they can't turn you down for a permit) have lower violent-crime rates, on average, than may-issue (get the permit IF you kiss good official @$$) or no-issue states. What you DON'T see is blood in the streets over traffic stupidity, or general arguments.

When I carry, I'm MORE polite than if I'm not. The only way for me to justifiably shoot someone, is (a) I must be the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack, (b) I must be in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm -- or defending someone else from same, and (c) make a reasonable effort to avoid having to shoot.

Frankly, I'd RATHER have the Wild West. The per-capita annual homicide rate for Tombstone, AZ, doesn't add up to a bad week in Washington, DC.

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

I think we essentially agree on a basic level: "qualified personnel carrying guns". I think if you meet the qualifications, pass the licensing exam, and demonstrate common sensibility, then you should be allowed to carry a gun. That's not my issue here.

What I am arguing against is the knee-jerk reaction that "OMG everyone needs a gun and then we'll all be safe". I can think of many contemporary situations in which many people are armed and no one is safe. My point here is, as you pointed out, the unqualified people don't deserve to carry a gun. Just as unqualified people don't belong behind the wheel of a car. It's a social responsibility and a public health responsibility to ensure that anyone who carries is aware of the rules, is responsible enough to not get mad over the slightest things, and is trained in proper use.

Not everyone with a gun will know what to do in a sudden crisis -- you never know how you'll react in combat until you get there. I've been the victim of a violent assault, and I know what it feels like to be fighting for my life. I know my reaction is very different now, partly because of my experience and partly because of my martial arts training.

I'd like to point out that Washington DC has a lot of illegal guns in the hands of unqualified people, who feel the need to answer disrespect with shooting, or commit more violent crimes with those guns. In this town, an armed citizenry may well be necessary -- as long as those citizens are properly trained and licensed.

Personally, for my home protection I would prefer a sawed-off shotgun (illegal as they may be). I would rather not have to worry about aiming at an intruder while trying to negotiate the house. Instead, we have a large dog and other weapons that are not obvious.

I'm also glad that you can carry, politely, and that you are ready to defend yourself. More folks like you will help make this a safer society.

Thanks for commenting! :-)

We may also differ...

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

... on what constitutes a "qualified" carrier. Virginia's training standard amounts to knowing which end the bang comes out of, and don't point that end where you don't want a hole. I'm perfectly ok with that. I used my Army discharge as proof-of-training. Note that the level of firearms competency in the Army 30 years ago (just post Vietnam), was pretty abysmal. Incidentally, the only reason I need the permit, is to conceal the gun. VA has "cowboy carry", openly, without a permit.

My problem with "Licensed-and-qualified" is the same one that most liberals have with literacy tests, for voting. During the Jim Crow era, a black man went to vote. The election judge handed him a newspaper, and he read it. The election judge then handed him a philosopy text, and he read it. Finally, the election judge handed him another newspaper -- in Chinese. The black voter said,
"Oh, I know what this says!"

Flabbergasted, the election judge responded,
"You do?"

"Yep. It says, 'This is one n****r that ain't gonna vote.'"

New York and New Jersey, for example, deliberately make the process of acquiring a gun license so onerous, that most people don't consider it worth the effort to get a gun. If you ask one of their government people, they'll freely admit that it's deliberately designed that way.

On the sawed-off shotgun thing, you still have to aim. My bedroom gun is a twelve-gauge with an 18-1/2" (1/2" over legal minimum) barrel. Believe me -- you have to aim. Spread on it is about 3 feet at 15 yards.

Re: We may also differ...

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

That's a good point there, and I don't want us to end up with overly strict qualification tests either. I've heard of places where you take a basic safety course at a range, at the end of which you take a "qualifying test" and if you pass, the instructor certifies you for the license. I may be wrong on this, but it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. It could even be left to private agencies to do the teaching courses, much like drivers ed courses or motorcycle license courses are, and certify the attendee for the government-issued license.

As for aiming the shotgun I do know -- I have fired handguns, rifles and shotgun. It's less of an issue to aim the shotgun at that side of the earth, compared to a handgun, but this may well be a case of YMMV. ;-)

I'm more of a preventative kind of person -- perhaps not too surprising given my profession -- and I'd prefer not to get into a situation where I have to have a gun. Like I said, we have other weapons that are not so obvious and cannot be denied on the basis of "no license". I believe the Army still instructs its new personnel that the best weapon one has is "right here". :-)

Re: We may also differ...

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

Replying to my own post in order to point out what you might not know: I am a veterinarian, and when I referred to that mobile vet practice, I speak from experience. ;-)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you say here. Beautifully written!

I read this post to my fiance, and he brought up one criticism. In the large hospital complex where he runs the badging system, there are 300 security cameras. Only a dozen or so are actively monitored. All the rest are there as deterrents and as ways of documenting activity -- if a crime occurs, the evidence on tape may eventually help catch the bad guy, but it is not going to bring security personnel to the scene any quicker. He says that this is normal for almost all installations with security cameras (casinos being the big exception).

The reason is because it would be prohibitively expensive to monitor them all. Psychological studies, he says, have been run to determine how many security cameras one person can effectively monitor at a time, and the absolute maximum is 60. To actively monitor all 300 security cameras, the hospital would have to hire an additional twenty security officers.

So installing security cameras, while it sounds good, is not a practical solution, alas.

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

I know -- it requires an investment of manpower to monitor the cameras, and people get lax about it (except the casinos, as you noted). However, I suspect that computerized monitoring of the vast majority of camera "time" will assist, acting as filters for those long hours/days/weeks when nothing happens. If (or when) we can develop software to identify "unusual behavior" that can then alarm the monitoring officer, then we can get a rapid response to the crime. I'm thinking along the lines of what exists in DC; it's a sound monitoring system that essentially listens for gunshots and reports them to the police. Their response times can be cut way down in those neighborhoods.

All in all, we need to remember that most law enforcement personnel have learned we can't prevent a truly dedicated person from carrying out evil, and we can't profile them as they are all different enough. The basic method of identifying someone is still by face-to-face talking, for a long enough period of time, combined with "gut instinct".

[murstein.livejournal.com]

I have two points worth mentioning.

I wonder if Liviu Librescu would have been surprised to see himself hailed as a hero on the mail list of a Germanic Heathen organization. The total discussion of the shootings on that list was praise for his heroism.

I find it an interesting point that no firearms are allowed on the campus of Virginia Tech. Before Cho began shooting up classrooms, 75 holders of concealed carry permits had turned in their guns on their way on campus. This makes the campus a safer place for folks with mass murder on their minds, in my opinion.

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

I think a Holocaust survivor and refugee from Romania would not have been surprised by anything under the sun. ;-) Although he -- and everyone else in his classroom -- was taken by surprise, he moved to save his students without hesistation. By anyone's standards, that's the measure of a true hero.

Your point on the campus requirements is -- in my humble opinion -- missing something important. Although I have no problems with trained and qualifed people carrying licensed weapons, I would argue that they would most likely not have been able to change anything that day. First of all, 75 out of 26,000 isn't good odds that they would have been in Norris Hall. Second, being licensed to carry doesn't mean that you are capable of responding to a sudden attack. That takes a different mindset and a different environment.

Third, and most important to me, someone running amok is not a common occurrence even worldwide. Not only are your chances good that you'll never see one or be involved in such an incident, you also cannot predict when the next one will happen.

That's the salient point here: no one could predict that the killer would go on this rampage. No one ever does. McDonalds, San Diego, 1984? Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal, 1989? Columbine?

The Washington Post had a great comment from a police chief in this weekend's review: He said, essentially, that the public is reviewing this from last to first. You and I know that Cho was the killer. The police didn't have that luxury last year, when he was coming to the attention of the authorities. In hindsight, of course it would have been nice to have all 75 people with their guns handy -- but we didn't know it that morning.

Other people have addressed the issues of allowing civilians with weapons during a crisis like this, and they've made their points far better than I can, so I will only refer you to the Making Light website.